Communicated on 11 September 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 43113/15
Ildar Ildusovich DADIN against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The applicants are Russian nationals. Their personal details and dates of introduction of the applications are set out below. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr N. Zboroshenko, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
The circumstances of the cases
The applicants are civil-rights activists. At the material time they regularly participated in various public events (публичные мероприятия) (meetings, solo demonstrations, marches, and so forth) held in Moscow. Such public events are governed by Federal Law no. FZ-54 on Gatherings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets, of 19 June 2004, with amendments (“the Public Events Act”).
The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Dadin v. Russia (application no. 43113/15, lodged on 13 August 2015)
The applicant is Mr Ildar Ildusovich Dadin, who was born in 1982 and lives in the town of Zheleznodorozhnyy, Moscow Region.
(a) Public event of 18 June 2014 and ensuing proceedings
On 18 June 2014 Mr Dadin attended a peaceful public event (a meeting of twenty people) in support of individuals persecuted for political reasons, which was held in front of the building of the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow (“the Zamoskvoretskiy Court”). The authorities had not approved the meeting.
At about 3.30 p.m. the police arrested the applicant, brought him to Zamoskvorechye police station and drew up an administrative-offence report under Article 20.2 § 2 (organisation of a public event in breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events) of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). It appears that Mr Dadin was released once the report had been drawn up.
On 23 September 2014 the Zamoskvoretskiy Court held a hearing in the administrative-offence case against Mr Dadin in the absence of a prosecuting authority. The applicant, who had not been notified of the hearing, did not attend it.
The Zamoskvoretskiy Court found the applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO (breach by a participant in a public event of the established procedure for the conduct of public events, which did not entail harm to other people or property) and sentenced him to a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB). It described the offence as follows:
“At 3.30 p.m. on 18 June 2014, at 1 Tatarskaya Street in Moscow, Mr Dadin together with about twenty individuals participated in a public event (a meeting) which had not been authorised by the executive authorities of Moscow, shouted slogans [such as] ‘Free political prisoners’ and ‘Fascists’, [and] did not react to police officers’ lawful demands to end the public event.”
The applicant’s representative received a copy of the judgment on 2 February 2015 and appealed against it to the Moscow City Court (“the City Court”) on 6 February 2015.
By that time, Mr Dadin had been charged with a criminal offence under Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code (repeated breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events if a person has been subject to administrative-offence proceedings under Article 20.2 of the CAO more than twice within 180 days) (see below) and placed under house arrest.
The applicant’s representative applied to have the City Court ensure the applicant’s attendance at the hearing, ensure a prosecutor’s participation in the hearing, summon the police officers who had arrested the applicant as witnesses, and keep a record of the hearing.
On 16 March 2015 the City Court held an appeal hearing in the absence of the applicant and of a prosecutor, dismissed the applicant’s representative’s applications, and upheld the judgment of 23 September 2014.
(b) Public event of 23 August 2014 and ensuing proceedings
(i) Three administrative offences
At about 4.30 p.m. on 23 August 2014 Mr Dadin was present at Manezhnaya Square taking part, together with two other individuals, in a peaceful public event (an unauthorised “picket” demonstration) in support of individuals persecuted for political reasons. He held a placard.
At about 4.50 p.m. the police arrested the applicant and brought him to Kitay-Gorod police station where they drew up an administrative-offence report under Articles 19.3 § 1 (failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer) and 20.2 § 2 of the CAO.
Once the administrative-offence report had been drawn up, the applicant was released. He returned to Manezhnaya Square and joined two other people who had continued to take part in the public event.
At about 7.30 p.m. the police again arrested the applicant, brought him to Kitay-Gorod police station and drew up an administrative-offence report under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. It appears that Mr Dadin was released after that.
(ii) Court proceedings
(α) Administrative offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO committed at 7.50 p.m.
On 4 September 2014 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow (“the Tverskoy Court”) heard the administrative-offence case against the applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO in the absence of the applicant and a prosecuting authority. It described the offence as follows:
“The offence was committed under the following circumstances: at 7.50 p.m. on 23 August 2014, at 1 Manezhnaya Square, as a member of the group of three, Mr Dadin participated in a public event of which the executive authorities of Moscow had not been notified, [he was] holding a placard and shouting slogans of ‘thematic content’ (‘тематического содержания’), [he] did not react to repeated demands of police officers to end [his] unlawful actions.”
The Tverskoy Court found the applicant guilty of the offence under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 10,000.
The applicant’s representative was served with a copy of the judgment on 26 January 2015. He appealed, requesting that the City Court ensure a prosecutor’s attendance, summon the police officers who had arrested the applicant as witnesses, and keep a record of the appeal hearing.
On 16 March 2015 the City Court dismissed the representative’s applications and upheld the judgment of 4 September 2015.
(β) Administrative offence under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO
On 6 September 2014 the Tverskoy Court heard an administrative‑offence case against the applicant under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO in the absence of a prosecuting authority. The applicant did not attend the hearing because he had not been notified of it. The Tverskoy Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 1,000. It described the offence as follows:
“The offence was committed under the following circumstances: at 4.50 p.m. on 23 August 2014, at 1 Manezhnaya Square, Mr Dadin, as a participant in a public event in the form of a picket of which the executive authorities of Moscow had not been notified, as a member of the group of two, held a placard and shouted slogans of thematic content. In response to repeated lawful demands of police officers who had been protecting public order to end such actions and disperse [the picket], Mr Dadin replied in the negative[;] when brought to the police bus [he] tried to liberate himself, pushed the police officers, thus demonstrating his refusal to comply with the lawful orders of the police officers [who were] performing their duties to protect public order and ensure public security.”
On 26 January 2015 the applicant was served with a copy of the judgment. He appealed against it to the City Court on 30 January 2015.
Mr Dadin, who had been placed under house arrest (see below), applied to have the City Court ensure his attendance at the appeal hearing; ensure a prosecutor’s attendance; summon the police officers who had arrested him as witnesses; and keep a record of the hearing.
On 16 March 2015 the City Court heard the appeal. It dismissed all the applications by Mr Dadin and upheld the judgment of 6 September 2015.
(γ) Administrative offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO committed at 4.50 p.m.
On 16 October 2014 the Tverskoy Court held a hearing in the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO in the absence of a prosecuting authority. The applicant had not been notified of the hearing and did not attend it. The Tverskoy Court described the offence as follows:
“The offence was committed under the following circumstances: at 4.50 p.m. on 23 August 2014, at 1 Manezhnaya Square, Mr Dadin, as a member of the group of two, participated in a picket of which the executive authorities of Moscow had not been notified, while holding a placard made in advance of thematic content and attracting the attention of passers-by and the media[; he] did not react to demands of [police] officers to end the event.”
The Tverskoy Court found the applicant guilty of the offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 10,000.
On 12 March 2015 the City Court quashed the judgment of 16 October 2014 on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The applicant, who was under house arrest, asked for his presence at a new hearing to be ensured. He also asked to have it postponed on account of his lawyer’s scheduled absence from Moscow.
On 30 April 2015 the Tverskoy Court, having rejected the applicant’s applications, held a hearing in his absence and the absence of his lawyer and a prosecuting authority and found the applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. It described the offence as follows:
“The offence was committed under the following circumstances: at 4.50 p.m. on 23 August 2014, at 1 Manezhnaya Square next to the Zhukov monument, Mr Dadin, as a member of the group of two, participated in a public event of which the executive authorities of Moscow had not been notified, holding a placard with a text of thematic content and shouting slogans.”
On 16 June 2015 the applicant’s representative received a copy of the judgment of 30 April 2015. He appealed and applied to have the City Court ensure a prosecutor’s attendance, summon the police officers who had arrested the applicant as witnesses, and keep a record of the appeal hearing.
On 4 August 2015 the City Court, having dismissed the representative’s applications, upheld the judgment of 30 April 2015.
2. Dadin and Ionov v. Russia (application no. 44322/15, lodged on 17 August 2015)
The applicants are Mr Ildar Dadin and Mr Vladimir Ivanovich Ionov, who was born in 1939 and lives in Moscow.
(a) Public event of 13 September 2014 and ensuing proceedings
The two applicants took part in a peaceful public event, a static “picket” demonstration, at Manezhnaya Square in support of individuals persecuted for political reasons.
At about 6 p.m. the police arrested the applicants, brought them to Kitay‑Gorod police station and drew up administrative-offence reports under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO against each applicant. It appears that the applicants were then released.
On 23 September 2014 the Tverskoy Court heard the administrative‑offence cases against each applicant in the absence of a prosecuting authority. The applicants had not been notified of the hearing and did not attend it.
On the same date the Tverskoy Court found Mr Ionov guilty under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 10,000. It described the offence as follows:
“Mr Ionov as a participant in a public event committed a breach of the rules on [such events] set out in [the Public Events Act;] in particular, at 5.25 p.m. on 13 September 2014 at 2 Revolyutsii Square at the entrance to the Museum of History of Moscow he participated in a picket without notification having been given to the executive authorities, as a member of a group of two people, while holding a placard with an anti-President inscription.”
On the same date, 23 September 2014, the Tverskoy Court found Mr Dadin guilty under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 15,000. It described the offence as follows:
“Mr Dadin as a participant in a public event breached the rules on picketing. At 6.15 p.m. on 13 September 2014 at 1 Manezhnaya Square Mr Dadin as a participant in a picket held by a group of individuals without notification of holding the said public event having been given to the executive authorities of Moscow, thus breaching the rules on picketing set out in [the Public Events Act].”
The applicants appealed. Mr Ionov’s representative argued that her client had in effect held a solo “picket” demonstration.
On 16 March 2015 the City Court heard Mr Dadin’s appeal. It dismissed the defence’s applications to have the applicant’s attendance at the appeal hearing ensured, to ensure a prosecutor’s attendance, to summon the police officers who had arrested the applicant as witnesses and to keep a record of the hearing, and upheld the judgment of 23 September 2014.
On 25 March 2015 Mr Ionov applied to have the City Court postpone the appeal hearing in his case because he had been admitted to hospital and because it was “necessary for [him] to use the services of a qualified lawyer”. No explanation as to why the applicant could not retain a lawyer was given.
On 26 March 2015 the City Court dismissed the application to postpone the hearing and upheld Mr Ionov’s conviction of 23 September 2014. The defence’s argument that the applicant had held a solo “picket” demonstration was dismissed as “contradicting the evidence contained in the case file”.
(b) Public event of 14 September 2014 and ensuing proceedings
Mr Dadin took part in a peaceful public event (a static “picket” demonstration involving three people) at Manezhnaya Square against President Putin’s policies.
At about 5 p.m. the police arrested the applicant, brought him to Kitay‑Gorod police station and drew up an administrative-offence report under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. It appears that Mr Dadin was released once the report had been drawn up.
On 25 September 2014 the Tverskoy Court held a hearing in the absence of Mr Dadin and of a prosecuting authority, found Mr Dadin guilty under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 10,000. It described the offence as follows:
“Mr Dadin as a participant in a public event in the form of a picket committed a breach of the rules on its conduct[;] in particular, at about 5 p.m. at 2/3 Revolyutsii Square at the entrance of the Museum of the Patriotic War of 1812 [Mr Dadin], in a group of three individuals, took part in a picket held without prior communication with the executive authorities, that is to say the Department of Regional Security of Moscow, while holding a placard of thematic content. He did not react to repeated demands by police officers to end the said public event and thus broke the requirements of [the Public Events Act] and [the Law amending the CAO].”
On 16 March 2015 the City Court heard Mr Dadin’s appeal. It dismissed the defence’s applications to ensure the applicant’s attendance of the appeal hearing, to ensure a prosecutor’s attendance, to summon the police officers who had arrested Mr Dadin as witnesses and to keep a record of the hearing, and upheld the judgment of 25 September 2014.
(c) Public event of 6 November 2014 and ensuing proceedings
Mr Dadin took part in a peaceful public event (a meeting) in support of individuals charged with criminal offences on account of participation in the Bolotnaya Square protests of 6 May 2012. The meeting was not approved by the authorities. It is unclear how many people participated in it.
At 8.20 p.m. the police arrested the applicant, brought him to Khamovniki police station and drew up an administrative-offence report under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO.
At about 12 midnight Mr Dadin was released.
On 24 December 2014 the Tverskoy Court found Mr Dadin guilty under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO in the absence of a prosecuting authority and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000. It described the offence as follows:
“The offence was committed under the following circumstances: at about 8.20 p.m. on 6 November 2014 Mr Dadin together with a group of individuals took part in a meeting, of which the executive authorities of Moscow had not been notified, while shouting slogans of thematic content and attracting the attention of the public.”
On 23 October 2015 the applicant’s representative appealed against the judgment, asking to have the time-limit for lodging an appeal restored. He also applied to have the City Court ensure a prosecutor’s participation in the hearing, question the police officers who had arrested the applicant and keep a record of the hearing.
On 30 March 2016 the City Court, having dismissed the defence’s applications, upheld the judgment of 24 December 2014.
3. Dadin and Others v. Russia (application no. 49504/15, lodged on 21 September 2015)
The applicants are Mr Ildar Dadin, Ms Yelena Georgiyevna Zakharova, who was born in 1949 and lives in the settlement of Medvezhyi Ozera, Moscow Region, and Ms Irina Leonidovna Kalmykova, who was born in 1960 and lives in the town of Kogalym, Yamalo-Nenetskiy Region.
(a) Public event of 21 November 2014 and subsequent events
(i) Public event
The applicants participated in a peaceful public event (a march down Sofiyskaya Embankment toward Bolotnaya Square) in protest against Russia’s involvement in the hostilities in Donetsk and Luhansk Regions of Ukraine.
Once the public event ended, at about 9 p.m., the police arrested the applicants, brought them to Yakimanka police station and drew up administrative-offence reports under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO.
(ii) Applicants’ detention
The applicants remained detained in the police station’s premises. They describe the conditions of their detention as follows.
Mr Dadin was placed in a cell for administrative detainees (“a KAZ cell”, “камера для административно-задержанных”) measuring 4.5 sq. m which he shared with another detainee.
Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova were placed for the night in a meeting room of the police station.
The applicants were not provided with individual sleeping places. They were not provided with access to drinking water. They were given instant‑food rations and hot water. Neither the KAZ cell nor the meeting hall were equipped with sanitary facilities, however, the guards escorted the applicants to the toilet upon request. The KAZ cell was lit throughout the night.
The applicants were released from the police station at about 4 p.m. on 22 November 2014.
(iii) Administrative-offence proceedings
On 16 February 2015 the Zamoskvoretskiy District Court of Moscow (“the Zamoskvoretskiy Court”) held hearings in the applicants’ administrative-offence cases. Prior to the hearings, it had dismissed the defence’s application to have them examined in the presence of a prosecutor and granted applications to include written submissions in the case files, to question the police officers who had arrested the applicants as witnesses and to keep a record of the hearings.
Having heard the police officers’ statements, the Zamoskvoretskiy Court found each applicant guilty under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO and sentenced each of them to a fine of RUB 500. The reasoning in each of the three judgments was identical. In so far as relevant, the judgments read as follows (the parts that differ in the texts of three judgments are in angle brackets):
“When questioned as a witness during the court hearing, Officer ... Having assessed the items of evidence examined during the court hearing, the court considers them admissible, reliable and sufficient to find guilty, because the court sees no reason not to trust the said items of evidence [and] it has not been established that they were collected with any significant breaches of law.” On 20 April 2015 the City Court heard the applicants’ respective appeals and upheld the judgments of 16 February 2015. (iv) Applicants’ complaints under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure On 20 February 2015 the applicants brought complaints to the Zheleznodorozhnyy District Court of Moscow (“the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court”) under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asking for their arrests to be declared disproportionate to the aims sought and for the conditions of their detention in Yakimanka police station to be declared unacceptable. On the same date Ms Zakharova’s and Ms Kalmykova’s complaints were returned unexamined for the reason that the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to examine complaints from the claimants who did not reside in the town of Zheleznodorozhnyy. Appeals lodged against the refusals to consider the merits of the complaints were dismissed on 29 April 2015. On 25 June 2015 the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court heard Mr Dadin’s complaints. It terminated the proceedings concerning Article 5 of the Convention for the reason that Mr Dadin’s administrative detention could not be challenged under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Zheleznodorozhnyy Court examined Mr Dadin’s complaint concerning conditions of his detention on the merits. It found that the applicant had been allocated about 2.25 sq. m of space and, lacking an individual sleeping place, he had slept on the floor. It further found that the instant‑food ration that Mr Dadin had been given had not met the domestic‑law requirements regarding food provision to detainees. Accordingly, the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court held that the conditions of Mr Dadin’s detention in a KAZ cell in Yakimanka police station had been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, Article 21 of the Constitution and domestic regulations on conditions of detention. (b) Public event of 5 December 2014 and subsequent events (i) Public event On 5 December 2014 the applicants took part in a peaceful public event (a march of five people down Myasnitskaya Street) in protest against Russia’s involvement in the hostilities in Donetsk and Luhansk Regions of Ukraine and the takeover of the Crimea. At about 9.30 p.m. the police arrested the applicants, brought them to Basmannyy police station and drew up administrative-offence reports under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO (participation in an unauthorised public event causing disturbance to traffic). (ii) Applicants’ detention Upon arrival at Basmannyy police station, the applicants were placed in KAZ cells: Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova in one measuring 4.5 sq. m, and Mr Dadin in another measuring 7.5 sq. m, which he shared with two other detainees. The applicants describe the conditions of their detention as follows. The applicants were not allocated individual sleeping places. They were given instant-food rations and hot water. The KAZ cells were not equipped with sanitary facilities. The cells remained lit throughout the night. Ms Kalmykova suffered from food poisoning allegedly because of the poor quality of the food ration. At about 12.20 a.m. on 6 December 2014 an ambulance came to attend to her but did not provide any medical assistance. At 4.20 p.m. on 6 December 2014 the applicants were released. (iii) Administrative-offence proceedings On 8 December 2014 the Basmannyy District Court of Moscow (“the Basmannyy Court”) heard the administrative-offence case against Ms Kalmykova in the absence of a prosecuting authority. Ms Kalmykova had not been notified of the hearing and did not attend it. The Basmannyy Court established, in particular, the following: “Ms Kalmykova ... as part of a group of five individuals participated in a march on the carriageway of the road between ... nos. 24 and 20 Myasnitskaya Street, and, having lit flares, blocked traffic, without prior authorisation ..., [she] also held aloft, together with other participants, a banner ... [reading] ‘Yesterday – Kiev, tomorrow – Moscow’ and shouted slogans [such as] ‘Glory to Ukraine’ ... She did not react to repeated requests by police officers and continued to attract the attention of passers-by and shout slogans ...” The Basmannyy Court found Ms Kalmykova guilty under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 19,000. On 30 January 2015 the Basmannyy Court terminated the administrative‑offence proceedings against Mr Dadin and ordered that the case file be transferred to the investigative authorities to consider institution of criminal proceedings under Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code (see below). The decision read, in particular, as follows: “Mr Dadin ... as part of a group of five individuals participated in a march on the carriageway of the road between ... nos. 24 and 20 Myasnitskaya Street and, having lit flares, blocked traffic. He prevented vehicles from moving, without prior authorisation ..., [he] also held aloft, together with other participants, a banner ... [reading] ‘Yesterday – Kiev, tomorrow – Moscow’ and shouted slogans [such as] ‘Glory to Ukraine’ ... He did not react to repeated requests by police officers and continued to attract attention of passers-by and shout slogans ...” On 24 February 2015 the Basmannyy Court heard the administrative‑offence case against Ms Zakharova in the absence of a prosecuting authority. Prior to the hearing, it had dismissed the defence’s applications to ensure a prosecutor’s participation in the proceedings, to question the police officers who had arrested her as witnesses and to keep a record of the hearing. The Basmannyy Court established, in particular, the following: “... as part of a group of five individuals, [the applicant] participated in a march on the carriageway of the road between ... nos. 24 and 20 Myasnitskaya Street, and, having lit flares, blocked traffic, without prior authorisation ..., [she] held aloft, together with other participants, a banner ... [reading] ‘Yesterday – Kiev, tomorrow – Moscow’ and shouted slogans [such as] ‘Glory to Ukraine’ ... She did not react to repeated requests by police officers and continued to attract the attention of passers-by and shout slogans ...” The Basmannyy Court found Ms Kalmykova guilty under Article 20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of RUB 10,000. On 26 March 2015 the City Court upheld the decision of 30 January 2015 in respect of Mr Dadin. On 6 April 2015 the City Court upheld the judgment of 24 February 2015 against Ms Zakharova. On 20 April 2015 the City Court upheld the judgment of 8 December 2014 against Ms Kalmykova. (iv) Applicants’ complaints under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure On 2 March 2015 the applicants complained to the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court, asking to have their detention on 5-6 December 2014 declared to have been in breach of Article 5 of the Convention and its conditions in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. On the same date Ms Zakharova’s and Ms Kalmykova’s complaints were returned unexamined for the reason that the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to examine complaints from the claimants who did not reside in the town of Zheleznodorozhnyy. The City Court subsequently dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the ruling. On 15 June 2015 the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court examined Mr Dadin’s complaints. It terminated the proceedings concerning Article 5 of the Convention for the reason that Mr Dadin’s administrative detention could not be challenged under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At the same time, it allowed Mr Dadin’s complaint regarding the conditions of his detention in the KAZ cell of Basmannyy police station. The Zheleznodorozhnyy Court found that the applicant had been allocated about 2.55 sq. m of space and, lacking an individual sleeping place, had slept on the floor. It further found that the instant-food ration that Mr Dadin had been given had not met the domestic-law requirements regarding food provision to detainees. Accordingly, the Zheleznodorozhnyy Court held that the conditions of Mr Dadin’s detention had been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention, Article 21 of the Constitution and domestic regulations on conditions of detention. The judgment of 15 June 2015 was appealed against. The outcome of the proceedings is unknown. 4. Dadin and Others v. Russia (application no. 37091/15, lodged on 6 July 2015) The applicants are Mr Ildar Dadin, Mr Vladimir Ionov, and Mr Mark Izrailevich Galperin, who was born in 1968 and lives in Moscow. (a) Public event of 15 January 2015 and ensuing administrative-offence proceedings (i) Public event In the afternoon of 15 January 2015 a peaceful public event (a meeting) in support of Alexey Navalnyy, a public figure, gathering about 250 people, took place at Manezhnaya Square. The applicants were present in the square – Mr Galperin and Mr Ionov as participants in the public event and Mr Dadin as an observer. At about 7.30 p.m. the police arrested the applicants. They brought Mr Dadin to Meshchanskiy police station. Mr Galperin and Mr Ionov were brought to Kitay-Gorod police station. The police drew up administrative-offence reports under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 2 of the CAO in respect of Mr Dadin and under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO (a repeated breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events which does not constitute a criminal offence) in respect of Mr Galperin and Mr Ionov. (ii) Applicants’ detention In the respective police stations, each applicant was placed in a KAZ cell. According to the applicants, the conditions of detention in the KAZ cells of the Meshchanskiy and the Kitay-Gorod police stations were essentially the same. The applicants describe them as follows. The applicants were not allocated individual sleeping places. They were not provided with access to drinking water. They were given instant-food rations and hot water. The KAZ cells were not equipped with sanitary facilities; however, the guards escorted the applicants to the toilet upon request. The KAZ cells were lit throughout the night. The applicants remained in the KAZ cells until 4 p.m. on 16 January 2015, when they were escorted to the Tverskoy Court. (iii) Court proceedings (α) Proceedings against Mr Dadin On 16 January 2015 the Tverskoy Court delivered two judgments in respect of Mr Dadin. In the judgment concerning the proceedings instituted under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, the Tverskoy Court in the absence of a prosecuting authority found Mr Dadin guilty under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000. It described the offence as follows: “The administrative offence was committed under the following circumstances: at 9 p.m. on 15 January 2015 at 1 Manezhnaya Square Mr Dadin, in a group of ... about 250 individuals, was a participant in a meeting which had not been discussed with the executive authorities, specifically the Prefect’s Office of the Central District of Moscow, voiced opinions against the detention of Alexey Navalnyy, shouted slogans, blocked the entrance to the Okhotnyy Ryad metro station precluding the public’s free passage and thus continued to attract public attention. [He] did not react to repeated demands by police officers to end the said event, and he continued to attract public attention thus breaching [the Public Events Act and the Law amending the CAO].” In the judgment concerning the proceedings under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO, the Tverskoy Court found Mr Dadin guilty as charged in the absence of a prosecuting authority and sentenced him to fifteen days’ administrative detention. It described the offence as follows: “The offence was committed under the following circumstances: at 9 p.m. on 15 January 2015 at 1 Manezhnaya Square Mr Dadin, in a group of ... about 250 individuals, blocked the pedestrian crossing near the Okhotnyy Ryad metro station, shouted slogans[; he] did not react to repeated lawful demands by police officers to end unlawful actions, specifically to end the event which had not been discussed with the authorities, thus demonstrating his refusal to comply with lawful demands by the police officers and precluded them from performing their duties.” On 20 January 2015 the City Court upheld Mr Dadin’s conviction under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO. On 12 March 2015 the City Court upheld Mr Dadin’s conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. (β) Proceedings against Mr Galperin On 16 January 2016 the Tverskoy Court heard the administrative-offence case against Mr Galperin under Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO in the absence of a prosecuting authority. The Tverskoy Court found Mr Galperin guilty as charged and sentenced him to thirty days’ administrative detention. It described the offence as follows: “Mr Galperin as a participant in a public event repeatedly broke the rules on public events set out in [the Public Events Act]. The offence was committed under the following circumstances: at 7.45 p.m. on 15 January 2015 at 1 Manezhnaya Square Mr Galperin repeatedly over the course of a year took part in public events in groups of approximately twelve people, of which the executive authorities of Moscow had not been notified, shouted slogans of thematic content, [notwithstanding the fact that] Mr Galperin had been found guilty of administrative offences under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO by the judgments of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow of 28 July, 18 June, 28 February and 20 March 2014, which had taken effect.” On 27 January 2015 the City Court upheld the judgment of 16 January 2015 against Mr Galperin. (γ) Proceedings against Mr Ionov On 16 January 2015 the Tverskoy Court held a hearing in the case against Mr Ionov under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO in the absence of a prosecuting authority, found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 150,000. It described the offence as follows: “Mr Ionov as a participant in a public event repeatedly broke the rules on public events set out in [the Public Events Act]. The offence was committed under the following circumstances: at 7.45 p.m. on 15 January 2015 at 1 Manezhnaya Square Mr Ionov repeatedly over the course of a year took part in public events in groups of approximately twelve people, of which the executive authorities of Moscow had not been notified, shouted slogans of thematic content, [notwithstanding the fact that] Mr Galperin had been found guilty of administrative offences under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO by the judgments of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow of 27 March, 23 September and 25 September 2014, which had taken effect.” On 26 March 2015 the City Court upheld the judgment of 16 January 2015 against Mr Ionov. (b) Criminal proceedings against the applicants On 16 January 2015 an investigator of the investigative department of the Investigative Committee for the Central District of Moscow opened criminal proceedings under Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code against Mr Galperin and Mr Ionov. The criminal proceedings against Mr Galperin were opened on account of his participation in four public events: on 6 August and 5 December 2014, and on 10 and 15 January 2015. The investigator concluded that the applicant “[had] repeatedly broken the requirements of [the Public Events Act]” and thus “between 6 August 2014 and 15 January 2015 [had] committed a repeated breach of the rules on picketing, because he had previously been found administratively liable for administrative offences under Article 20.2 of CAO ... more than twice within 180 days.” The criminal proceedings against Mr Ionov were instituted on account of his participation in four public events: on 13 and 14 September 2014 and on 10 and 15 January 2015. The investigator reasoned that the applicant “[had] repeatedly broken the requirements of [the Public Events Act]” and thus “between 13 September 2014 and 15 January 2015 [had] committed a repeated breach of the rules on picketing, because he had previously been found administratively liable for administrative offences under Article 20.2 of CAO ... more than twice within 180 days.” On 27 January 2015 an investigator of the Zamoskvoretskiy inter-district investigative department of the Investigative Committee opened criminal proceedings against Mr Dadin under Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code on account of his participation in four public events: on 6 and 23 August, as well as 13 September 2014, and on 15 January 2015. On 30 January 2015 Mr Dadin was arrested. On 3 February 2015 the Zamoskvoretskiy Court ordered that Mr Dadin be placed under house arrest in connection with the criminal proceedings under Article 212.1 of the Criminal Code. COMPLAINTS A. Common complaints (applications nos. 43113/15, 44322/15, 49504/15 and 37091/15) 1. The five applicants complain under the criminal limb of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that in the course of all sets of administrative-offence proceedings against them the domestic courts assumed the functions of a prosecuting authority and thus were not impartial. 2. The five applicants complain, under Articles 10 or 11 of the Convention, that all sets of administrative-offence proceedings against them, which were “criminal” in essence, constituted instances of an interference with their right to freedom of assembly which were not “necessary in a democratic society”. B. Case-specific complaints 1. Mr Dadin, Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova (application no. 49504/09) complain, under Article 3 of the Convention, of unacceptable conditions of their detention at Yakimanka police station on 21‑22 November 2014 and at Basmannyy police station on 5‑6 December 2014. They also cited Article 13 of the Convention, complaining of a lack of effective domestic remedies in this connection. 2. Regarding their respective arrests and ensuing detention on 6 November 2014, 21-22 November and 5-6 December 2014, Mr Dadin (applications nos. 44322/15 and 49504/15), Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova (application no. 49504/15) complain that such deprivation of liberty was in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. 3. Mr Dadin (applications nos. 43113/15 and 44322/15) complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that in all sets of proceedings against him he was not notified of the court hearings in the first instance and that his attendance at the second-instance hearings was not ensured. Mr Ionov (application no. 44322/15) and Ms Kalmykova (application no. 49504/15) complain under the same head that they were not notified of the hearings of 23 September 2014 and 8 December 2014 respectively. 4. Mr Dadin (application no. 43113/15) complains, under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, that on 30 April 2015 the Tverskoy Court held a hearing in his representative’s absence. 5. Mr Dadin (applications nos. 43113/15, 44322/15 and 49504/15), and Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova (application no. 49504/09) complain, under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, that in the course of the proceedings against them concerning the public events of 18 June, 23 August, 13 and 14 September, 6 November and 5 December 2014 the City Court refused to summon the police officers who had arrested the applicants as witnesses. COMMON QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES As regards each occasion of dispersal of the public events involving the applicants and the ensuing administrative-offence proceedings against them referred to in the four applications, the Government are invited to answer the following questions: 1. Having regard to the applicants’ specific allegations, has there been an interference with the applicants’ respective rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention? In particular, what were the grounds for dispersals of the public events by the police? Given that the applicants did not engage in acts of violence, did the domestic authorities “show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings” (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 150, ECHR 2015, and Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 164 and 174-75, 26 April 2016)? Was there “a pressing social need” to take the applicants to police stations (see Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 92-95, 3 October 2013, and Novikova and Others, cited above, §§ 177-85)? Furthermore, did the domestic courts verify the extent of the risks posed by the applicants and whether it had been necessary for the police to interrupt the respective public events (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, § 65, 4 December 2014)? 2. Having regard to the applicants’ specific allegations concerning each set of administrative proceedings against them, did the applicants receive a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the lack of a prosecuting authority at the court hearings entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016)? CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES A. Applications nos. 44322/15 and 49504/15 As regards the respective arrests and detention of Mr Dadin, Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova on 6 November, 21-22 November and 5‑6 December 2014, were the applicants’ periods of deprivation of liberty compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the respective arrests and detention of Mr Dadin, Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law? Were they “arbitrary” (see Nemtsov v. Russia, no. 1774/11, § 103, 31 July 2014)? The Government are requested to submit the relevant arrest reports and, if any, the detention orders. B. Application no. 49504/15 1. Were the conditions of the respective detention of Mr Dadin, Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova at Yakimanka police station on 21‑22 November 2014 and at Basmannyy police station on 5‑6 December 2014 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Navalnyy and Yashin, cited above, § 112)? 2. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies in relation to their complaint concerning the conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (ibid., § 109)? C. Applications nos. 43113/15, 44322/15 and 49504/15 1. Having regard to the applicants’ specific allegations, were Mr Dadin, Mr Ionov and Ms Kalmykova notified of the respective court hearings in each set of administrative-offence proceedings against them in such a way as to have an opportunity to attend? If not, was there a violation of the applicants’ respective right to an adversarial trial and the right to defend themselves in person under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? The Government are requested to provide documents confirming that Mr Dadin, Mr Ionov and Ms Kalmykova were notified of the respective hearings. 2. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the Moscow City Court’s failure to ensure Mr Dadin’s participation in the appeal proceedings? 3. Having regard to the applicants’ specific allegations relating to the respective proceedings against Mr Dadin, Ms Zakharova and Ms Kalmykova concerning the public events of 18 June, 23 August, 13 and 14 September, 6 November and 5 December 2014, did the applicants have an opportunity to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? D. Application no. 43113/15 Was Mr Dadin able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing at the hearing of 30 April 2015, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? APPENDIX No. Application no. Application name Applicants 1. 43113/15 Dadin v. Russia Ildar Ildusovich Dadin 2. 44322/15 Dadin and Ionov v. Russia Ildar Ildusovich Dadin Vladimir Ivanovich Ionov 3. 49504/15 Dadin and Others v. Russia Ildar Ildusovich Dadin Irina Leonidovna Kalmykova Yelena Georgiyevna Zakharova 4. 37091/15 Dadin and Others v. Russia Ildar Ildusovich Dadin Vladimir Ivanovich Ionov Mark Izrailevich Galperin
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy