Published on 3 May 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 75484/14
Dmitriy Ivanovich MONAKHOV against Russia
and 8 other applications –
(see appended list)
communicated on 15 April 2021
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Relevant domestic law and practice
Public events in the immediate vicinity of the residences of the President of the Russian Federation are prohibited (section 8(2(3)) of the Public Events Act - Federal Law no. 54-FZ of 18 August 2004). The procedure for holding public events in the vicinity of historic or cultural monuments is determined by the regional executive authorities, with due regard to the particular features of such sites and the requirements of this Act (section 8(3) of the Act). The procedure for holding public events in the Kremlin, Red Square and the Aleksandrovskiy Garden is established by the President of the Russian Federation (section 8(4)).
Participants in public events are prohibited from hiding their faces, including by way of a mask or other items specially designed for impeding personal identification (section 6(4) of the Public Events Act).
According to Presidential Decree no. 806 of 29 July 1992, a special permission from the President, based on a report from his Office and his security service, are required for holding a public event in the Kremlin or in Red Square.
COMPLAINTS
All of the applicants complain, referring to Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention, that their convictions for staging solo demonstrations and, where relevant, their arrest and detention in connection with those demonstrations breached their right to freedom of assembly and/or freedom of expression. Some of them argue that the restriction was unlawful, notably as the authorities had been unable to provide documents to prove that the places where the applicants had staged demonstrations had been in the immediate vicinity of the President’s residence; and all of the applicants submit that the interference was disproportionate.
The applicants in cases nos. 71000/16 and 31947/17 complain under the above Convention provisions of their conviction for wearing masks depicting President Putin.
The applicants’ other complaints are summarised in the relevant part of the Appendix.
COMMON QUESTIONS
Do the circumstances of each case (where relevant, the termination of a demonstration, escorting to the police station, detention there and prosecution under the Code of Administrative Offences) disclose an “interference” under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11 of the Convention? Was the interference “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” (see Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, §§ 222-25, 26 April 2016, and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 431-42, 7 February 2017)? In particular,
(a) In all cases, were the relevant procedures, including the precise geographical scope of the restrictions, on holding public events at the relevant locations clear and accessible to the public? What is the justification for the ban on holding public events at the locations chosen by the applicants? The Government are requested to provide documents establishing the perimeter of the zone in the vicinity of the Kremlin in which holding public events was prohibited at the relevant time; as well as information on the legislative history of the relevant statutory ban. Were the locations chosen by the applicants within the restricted perimeter?
(b) In cases nos. 71000/16 (episodes of 13 and 18 March 2016 and 5 October 2016) and 31947/17, what was the legitimate aim of prohibiting the use of masks or other items covering the face in the case of a solo demonstration? When convicting the applicants for wearing masks, did the domestic courts assess whether wearing the masks had constituted a form of expression protected by Article 10 of the Convention?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. In case no. 71000/16, were the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the police station from 13 to 14 October 2016 compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Did he have an effective remedy for their complaint in respect of poor conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3?
2. In cases nos. 71000/16, 31947/17, 82627/17, 54935/18 and 31228/20, has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 5 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ escorting to the police stations and arrests (see Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, §§ 89-98, 4 December 2014)?
3. In all cases except the applications nos. 75484/14 and 11402/20: as regards each applicants’ trial, 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)?
4. In case no. 71000/16 (5th episode), was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing at the hearing of 14 October 2016, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention?
5. In all cases except the applications nos. 75484/14, 1299/20 and 11402/20, were the applicants able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention (see Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, §§ 100‑31, ECHR 2015)?
6. In case no. 82627/17, the parties are invited to provide a complete copy of the appeal judgment of 31 May 2017.
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 10 of the Convention in the light of Article 11
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Nationality
Date of solo demonstration
Details
Conviction, sanction
First- instance and final judgments’ dates
Other complaints
75484/14
27/11/2014
Dmitriy Ivanovich MONAKHOV
1983
Moscow
Represented by
Ilnur Ilgizovich SHARAPOV
28/08/2014
(erroneously cited in the application form as 12/08/2014)
1, Manezhnaya Square, near the Voskresenskiye Gate
Strolling and talking, expressing his protest against Russian authorities’ actions in Ukraine
Conviction under Article 19.3 § 1 of the CAO
(failure to comply with lawful orders of the police officers)
15 days’ administrative detention
28/08/2014
01/09/2014
None
50917/15
08/10/2015
Aleksey Viktorovich
BOCHKAREV
1991
Moscow
Represented by
MEMORIAL Human Rights Centre
08/08/2014
1a, Manezhnaya Square
Holding a placard
Shouting slogans
Conviction under Article 20.2 §5 of CAO
(breach of the procedure for the conduct of public events)
Fine of RUB 15,000
11/12/2014
08/04/2015
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted
71000/16
16/11/2016
Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV
1979
Moscow
Represented by
Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO
13/03/2016
Aleksandrovskiy Garden
Wearing a mask,
Holding a placard
Conviction under Article 20.2 §5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
22/03/2016
24/06/2016
Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) - failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted
18/03/2016
Red Square
Wearing a mask
Conviction under Article 20.1 §1 of CAO
(petty hooliganism)
Fine of RUB 500
10/05/2016
20/06/2016
Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted
27/09/2016
Red Square
Holding a placard
Conviction under Article 20.2 §8 of CAO
(repeated breach of conduct of public events)
Fine of RUB 300,000
24/11/2016
04/04/2017
Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted
05/10/2016
Red Square
Wearing a mask, holding a placard
Conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
(repeated breach of conduct of public events)
Fine of RUB 300,000
08/11/2016
04/04/2017
Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted
13/10/2016
Red Square
Holding a placard
Conviction under Article 20.2 § 8 of CAO
(repeated breach of conduct of public events)
20 days’ administrative detention
14/10/2016
18/10/2016
Articles 3 and 13 – inadequate conditions of detention at the police station between 13 and 14 October 2016, lack of an effective remedy
Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification, administrative arrest on 13-14 October 2016
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Art. 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) – lack of legal representation at the first instance
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted
31949/17
14/01/2017
Roman Petrovich ROSLOVTSEV
1979
Moscow
Aleksandr Anatolyevich FERENETS
1971
Moscow
Represented by
Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO
30/04/2016
Both intended to stage demonstrations in Red Square on a rotation basis
Mr Roslovtsev:
Wearing a mask, carrying a scrolled placard
Mr Ferenets:
Wearing a mask
Wearing a T-shirt with a slogan printed thereon
Mr Roslovtsev:
arrested when approaching the Red Square and was unable to stage the demonstration
Mr Ferenets:
Staged his demonstration
Both applicants: Conviction under Article 20.2 §5 of CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000 (Mr Ferenets) and RUB 20,000 (Mr Roslovtsev)
Mr Roslovtsev: 22/06/2016
28/09/2016
Mr Ferenets:
18/05/16
02/09/2016
Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted
82627/17
30/11/2017
Andrey Igorevich KISELEV
1992
Gus Khrustalnyy
23/03/2017
Red Square
Holding a placard (allegedly ripped from his hands by the police)
Conviction under Article 20.2 §5 of CAO)
Fine of RUB 10,000
05/04/2017
31/05/2017
Article 5§ 1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers who had arrested the applicant and compiled the records on the basis of which the applicant was convicted; as well as attesting witnesses
54935/18
10/11/2018
Yelena Georgiyevna ZAKHAROVA
1949
Arlington
Represented by
Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO
25/08/2017
1, Vasilyevskiy Spusk Sq., near the Saint Basil’s Cathedral
Conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Fine of RUB 20,000.
06/03/2018
22/05/2018
Article 5 §1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 § 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based
1299/20
27/12/2020
ZVEREV Sergey Anatolyevich
1963
Moscow
Represented by
Tatyana Segeyevna GLUSHKOVA
03/03/2019
Red Square
Holding a placard
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
13/05/2019
28/06/2019
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
11402/20
18/02/2020
SOKOLOVSKIY Ruslan Gennadiyevich
1994
Shadrinsk
Represented by
Svetlana Ivanovna SIDORKINA
24/06/2019
Red Square
Holding a placard
Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Fine of RUB 15,000
10/07/2019
22/08/2019
None
31228/20
02/07/2020
Olga Anatolyevna NAZARENKO
1975
Ivanovo
Represented by
Nikolay Sergeyevich ZBOROSHENKO
19/10/2019
Red Square
Conviction under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Fine of RUB 10,000
13/11/2019
12/02/2020
Article 5§1 – unlawful arrest and escorting to a police station without justification, detention for more than 3 hours
Article 6 § 1 – lack of prosecuting party in the administrative proceedings
Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) – failure to question in court the police officers on whose written statements her conviction was based
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy