Communicated on 12 November 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 46712/15
Yelena Vladimirovna BERKMAN
against Russia
lodged on 9 September 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the applicant’s attempt to participate in an “authorised” public event to support LGBT people, scheduled on 12 October 2013 in St Petersburg.
The event was disrupted by violent verbal and physical attacks of counter-demonstrators. Instead of constraining them, the police arrested a group of the event participants, including the applicant. She was then transferred to a police station and charged with disorderly behaviour in a public place, an offence under Article 20.1 of the Federal Code of Administrative Offences. Subsequently the administrative proceedings against the applicant were terminated for “the absence of an administrative offence”.
On 12 February 2014 the applicant lodged a claim with the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg challenging the lawfulness of the police conduct during the public event, her deprivation of liberty, and subsequent administrative proceedings against her. The court dismissed the claim on 23 October 2014. The applicant appealed, but to no avail. The St Petersburg City Court upheld the decision by the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 11 March 2015.
On 2 September 2015 the applicant challenged the both of the decisions by way of cassation appeal to the Presidium of the St Petersburg City Court. It appears that the Presidium of the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention? In particular, was there a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an administrative offence? Were her arrest, transfer to the police station and detention at the station carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law? How many persons were arrested in total? How many of them were participants to the event of 12 October 2013 and how many of them were counter-demonstrators?
2. Did the applicant’s arrest and detention on 12 October 2013 violate her right to freedom of assembly contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention?
3. Did the domestic authorities ensure that the public event of 12 October 2013 attended by the applicant could take place peacefully by sufficiently constraining allegedly homophobic and violent counter-demonstrators? Did the authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article 11 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, §§ 93-100, 12 May 2015)?
4. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
5. The parties are invited to provide information about the outcome of the applicant’s cassation appeal before the Presidium of the St Petersburg City Court and about other important developments in the case, if any.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy