Communicated on 1 April 2020
Published on 25 May 2020
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 19154/19 and 42416/19
MAN AND LAW against Russia
and SOGLASIYE against Russia
lodged on 20 March 2019 and 23 July 2019 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
The applicants are non-governmental organisations which were put on the register of “foreign agents” (see Ecodefence and Others v. Russia, no. 9988/13 and 48 others). The Russian telecoms regulator RosKomNadzor charged them with a violation of the labelling requirement. It was alleged that they posted materials on their social-network account without indication showing that they had originated from a “foreign agent” organisation. The courts fined each applicant organisation in the amount of 150,000 Russian roubles (2,000 euros). The hearings before the domestic courts were held in the absence of the prosecuting party. The applicants complain under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention?
Is the labelling requirement formulated with sufficient clarity? Does the national law prescribe with sufficient clarity what material requires labelling, from where the material should originate or how it should be labelled?
Is the labelling requirement proportionate to the aim pursued, and does it impose an excessive burden on the applicant organisations?
2. Did the imposition of the fine on the applicant organisations constitute an interference with their peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
If so, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant organisations (see Mamidakis v. Greece, no. 35533/04, §§ 40-48, 11 January 2007)?
Is the sanction for violation of the labelling requirement proportionate to the gravity of the imputed offence? Did the domestic courts weigh the amount of a fine against the financial resources of the applicant organisations and the potential impact of the fine on the organisations’ sustainability? Did the domestic courts consider whether the sanction was proportionate to the legitimate aim that the authorities sought to achieve?
3. Did the absence of the prosecuting party in administrative proceedings result in a breach of the impartiality requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, §§ 69-85, 20 September 2016)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Date of registration
Nationality
Represented by
1
19154/19
Man and Law v. Russia
20/03/2019
24/11/1999
Yoshkar-Ola
Russian
Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV
2
42416/19
Soglasiye
v. Russia
23/07/2019
05/04/1996
Barnaul
Russian
Aleksey Nikolayevich LAPTEV
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy