Communicated on 7 May 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 34241/16
Aleksandr Sergeyevich KHORRSHR
against Russia
and 2 other applications – see appended list
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applicants attached the Russian and Ukrainian flags to a scaffolding. After that they were held by private security guards until the police arrived. They could not comply with the police order to show their identity documents. They were then escorted to the police and detained there, as it follows from the record, “for the purpose of compiling the offence record”. They were prosecuted under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) for non-compliance with a lawful order by a public official. The impugned non-compliance consisted of (i) a refusal to present an identity document, (ii) a refusal to get into a police vehicle, and (iii) attracting attention from passers-by.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicants’ detention incompatible with Article 5 § 1 (b) or (c) of the Convention? In particular, was the formal basis for escorting the applicants to the police station or for keeping them there overnight related to the need to confirm their identities? If yes, was section 13 § 1(13) of the Police Act, allowing the use of the escorting procedure in order to establish identities in respect of people on a wanted list or fleeing prosecution, complied with? Were they released as soon as “the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law” was secured? Did Russian law provide for specific obligations listed above under (i)-(iii), for instance, to be in possession of an identity document in a public place? Was the order to show an identity document related to one of the grounds listed in section 13 § 2(1) of the Police Act, for instance, the presence of indications of an administrative offence? If the deprivation of liberty was specifically related to the statutory purpose of compiling record of an offence under Article 19.3 of the CAO, were the applicants released as soon as this purpose was achieved (compare Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, §§ 149‑50, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?
2. Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ allegations (see their application forms), inter alia, about the lack of a prosecuting party at the hearings and the absence of an opportunity to examine police officers at the trial or on appeal?
3.1 Did the facts of the cases disclose an “interference” by a public authority under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (compare Gülcü v. Turkey, no. 17526/10, §§ 91-201, 19 January 2016; Ibrahimov and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 69234/11 and 2 others, § 72, 11 February 2016; and Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan, nos. 67360/11 and 2 others, §§ 85-97, 11 February 2016)?
3.2. If yes, were the arrest, pre-trial detention and prosecution against the applicants prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society”? Furthermore, did the domestic authorities adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference and base their conclusions on an acceptable assessment of the facts (see Terentyev v. Russia, no. 25147/09, §§ 20-24, 26 January 2017), in particular having regard to the requirements imposed by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia in Ruling No. 21 of 27 June 2013 (see Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 359, 7 February 2017)?
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
34241/16
02/06/2016
Aleksandr Sergeyevich KHORRSHR
29/09/1985
Krasnoarmeysk
Russian
Oleg Dmitriyevich BEZNISKO
34245/16
Igor Valentinovich SHARAPOV
14/04/1966
St Petersburg
Russian
34956/16
Aleksey Sergeyevich DOMNIKOV
23/02/1984
Moscow
Russian
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy