Communicated on 28 May 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 2171/18
Semen Aleksandrovich KOCHKIN
against Russia
lodged on 26 December 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Semen Aleksandrovich Kochkin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1993 and lives in Cheboksary. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Glukhov, a lawyer practising in the Chuvashiya Republic.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. In March 2017 the applicant took part an anti-corruption rally in Cheboksary. The court found him guilty of disobeying the police order which had required him to stop shouting anti-government slogans and sentenced him to a fine under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences (see application no. 80382/17, joined to Semenov v. Russia, no. 39696/12).
4. On 12 May 2017 the police charged the applicant with public demonstration of extremist symbols, an offence under Article 20.3 of the COA. They had established that his account in the VKontakte social network contained a video showing the insignia of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, an organisation which the Russian Supreme Court had declared to be a terrorist organisation in February 2015. The applicant reposted the video on 11 August 2015.
5. The video in question featured a Russian translation of the American satirical television programme The Daily Show. It presented the story of three Chechen girls who had been contacted over the internet by jihadi fighters, had asked them for cash to travel to Syria but kept the money for themselves. People brandishing weapons and black flags with Arabic writing were shown in the background.
6. The trial was held in the Moskovskiy District Court in Cheboksary. The prosecutor was not present. The applicant pleaded not guilty. He pointed out that the video was a satire, that it did not seek to glorify or justify terrorism, that Article 20.3 of the CAO referred to extremist rather than terrorist organisations, and that there was no evidence that the flag in the video was that of the Islamic State.
7. On 25 May 2017 the District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. It did not address the applicant’s arguments and relied on the material collected by the police. The applicant was fined 1,500 Russian roubles.
8. On 29 June 2017 the Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic rejected the appeal, holding that the applicant’s arguments “were based on a misinterpretation of substantive law”.
9. Conviction of an extremism-related offence barred the applicant from organising public events and standing for election for a period of one year. In July 2017 he collected signatures required for the election to the Council of Deputies of the Tsivilsk District of the Chuvashiya Republic. On 3 August 2017 the Tsivilsk Election Commission rejected his application, referring to his conviction as the sole ground for disenfranchisement.
B. Relevant domestic law
10. Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences establishes that propaganda or public demonstration of insignia or attributes of Nazi or extremist organisations is punishable with a fine or up to fifteen days’ deprivation of liberty.
COMPLAINTS
11. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his conviction for publication of a satirical video was not necessary in a democratic society.
12. The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 that his conviction barred him from organising rallies or standing for election.
13. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court’s impartiality was undermined on account of the fact that it took over the functions of the prosecution in the absence of a prosecutor.
14. Finally, the applicant invokes under Article 7 of the Convention to allege that his conviction did have a legal basis because Article 20.3 did not refer to symbols of “terrorist” organisations such as the Islamic State.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. As regards the applicant’s conviction for reposting a satirical video, was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention?
2. As regards the prosecutor’s absence from the proceedings against the applicant, was it compatible with the principle of impartiality enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention that the trial court took over the functions of the prosecution (compare Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 51-84, 20 September 2016)?
3. Was the applicant’s conviction based on a foreseeable interpretation of Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, as required by Article 7 of the Convention, given that he was convicted of displaying insignia of a “terrorist” organisation but the text of that provision only referred to “extremist” organisations?
4. Was the measure preventing the applicant from organising public assemblies and standing for election following his conviction compatible with Article 11 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy