Published on 26 July 2021
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 38105/17 and 42210/19
Ivan Aleksandrovich MALININ against Russia
and Karim Bekmirzayevich YAMADAYEV against Russia
lodged on 13 May 2017 and 22 July 2019 respectively
communicated on 8 July 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant in case no. 38105/17 collected signatures in a “specially designated location”[1] using an A-frame information stander. The applicant in case no. 42210/19 on two different dates set up two “installations”, one using mannequins and another one using a gravestone and a fence, to protest against political repressions and restrictions on freedom of speech in the internet. On the latest occasion, he put his installation in place, published its photo to his social network account and left the venue. Domestic courts in each case considered that the applicants’ actions constituted solo demonstrations with recourse to “quickly (de)assembled objects” and convicted them in administrative proceedings of a failure to lodge a prior notification of their demonstrations to a competent local authority.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the administrative offence proceedings against both applicants for a failure to notify a solo demonstration with recourse to a “quickly (de)assembled object” and the second applicant’s administrative arrest (application no. 42210/19) violate their right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention read in the light of Article 11 (compare Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016)? In particular:
(a) Was the “interference” prescribed by law? Was it a foreseeable and reasonable interpretation of the law (see, in so far as relevant, Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 108-10, ECHR 2015, and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 113 and 117-18, 15 November 2018):
- to classify the first applicant’s collecting signatures in a “specially designated location” as a public event requiring a prior notification, where the maximum capacity of 100 persons was not exceeded (case no. 38105/17);
- to classify the second applicant’s actions as a public event in the form of solo demonstration, given, in particular, that he had allegedly immediately left the venue after having put his “installation” in place (case no. 42210/19, events of 10 March 2019)?
- to classify both applicants’ actions as solo demonstrations with recourse to “quickly (de)assembled objects” (быстровозводимые сборно‑разборные конструкции)? Was the domestic provision concerning “quickly (de)assembled objects” formulated with sufficient precision to enable the applicants to foresee, to a degree that was reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which their use of a stander in a “specially designated location” (case no. 38105/17) or two “installations” (case no. 42210/19) could entail?
(b) In each case, which of the legitimate aims were pursued by both the applicable legislation and the imposition of the sanctions on the applicants? Was there any “pressing social need” for such statutory requirement and for prosecuting the applicants? Did the domestic courts perform a careful balancing exercise between the need to punish a breach of the prior notification requirement and the applicant’s right to freedom of expression? Was the “interference” shown to have been necessary and proportionate?
2. In each case, were the courts which dealt with the applicants’ cases impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 38-85, 20 September 2016)? Reference is being made to the first-instance proceedings of 12 March 2019 (case no. 42210/19, 2nd episode); and to the remaining proceedings at both levels of jurisdiction.
3. In case no. 42210/19 (events of 10 March 2019), has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 5 of the Convention on account of his escorting to the police station and arrest pending trial (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 89-98, 4 December 2014)?
4. In case no. 42210/19 (both episodes), did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine the applicant’s right to have his conviction reviewed, as required by Article 2 of Protocol no. 7 to the Convention (see Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 179-91, 10 April 2018)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
Year of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
Solo demonstration, details
Final judgment (date, court)
Conviction, sanction
38105/17
13/05/2017
Ivan Aleksandrovich MALININ
1997
Novocheboksarsk
Russian
Aleksey Vladimirovich GLUKHOV
11/08/2016, Novocheboksarsk - collecting signatures discontinued by the police one hour later
15/11/2016
Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia
Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO
Administrative fine of RUB 20,000
/
42210/19*
22/07/2019
Karim Bekmirzayevich YAMADAYEV
1981
Naberezhnyye Chelny
Russian
Aleksey Vladimirovich GLUKHOV
20/01/2019, Naberezhnyye Chelny -
applicant arrested until the examination of his case by a trial court on 21/01/2019
23/01/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO
Eight days’ administrative arrest
10/03/2019, Naberezhnyye Chelny (behind the Investigative Committee building) - applicant arrested until the examination of his case by a trial court on 12/03/2019
19/03/2019
Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan
Article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO
Twenty-eight days’ administrative arrest
[1] “Specially designated locations” for collective discussion of important issues and for mass gatherings of citizens for the public expression of opinion on matters of social and political importance are defined by regional authorities (section 8(1.1) of the Public Events Act). No notification is required for a public event held in such a location with participation of less than one hundred persons (Law No. 77 of 30/11/2012 of the Chuvashia Republic).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy