Communicated on 7 June 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 39696/12
Andrey Aleksandrovich SEMENOV against Russia
and 16 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are Russian nationals. They were arrested during public assemblies and convicted of administrative offences for shouting slogans or waving banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public events in which they claimed to participate.
The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
COMPLAINTS
Joint complaints
The applicants in all cases complain that their escorting to the police stations, administrative arrests and the administrative offence proceedings against them violated their rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.
Individual complaints
1. Mr Mironov (application no. 79906/17) complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the allegedly inhuman conditions of detention at the police station.
2. The applicants in applications nos. 79906/17, 2940/18, 5270/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 complain that their escorting to the police stations and/or administrative arrests were unlawful and unjustified in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
3. The applicants in applications nos. 16683/17, 79906/17, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 4841/18, 5270/18, 5340/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court in the administrative-offence proceedings.
4. The applicants in applications nos. 79906/17, 5270/18 and 6493/18 complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention that they were unable to cross-examine witnesses against them, in particular the police officers who had arrested them and the police officers who had drawn up various procedural documents describing their offences.
5. Mr Shendakov (application no. 6493/18) complains Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine defence witnesses, in particular the eye-witnesses of his arrest.
6. The applicants in applications nos. 39696/12, 77503/12, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 5340/18 and 11453/18 complain under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention about the local authorities’ decisions refusing to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them.
7. Mr Nagibin and Mr Ryazantsev (application no. 77503/12) complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention about the refusal to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them.
8. The applicants in applications nos. 39696/12 and 29316/13 complain under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11 that the refusal to approve the location of their public event and/or their arrests and convictions for administrative offences amounted to discrimination on account of their political opinion.
9. Mr Mironov (application no. 79906/17) complains under Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that he was tried twice for the same offence because he was convicted under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences for substantially the same facts.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
COMMON QUESTION
Did the applicants’ arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against them for shouting slogans and/or waving banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the authorised public events in which they claimed to participate violate their right to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 10 and 11 of the Convention?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. Were the conditions of Mr Mironov’s detention in the police station from 9 to 10 May 2017 (application no. 79906/17) compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Were the applicants in applications nos. 79906/17, 2940/18, 5270/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were their escorting to the police station and/or their administrative arrests carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law? The Government are requested to submit relevant escorting and/or arrest records in respect of each applicant.
3. Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court in the administrative-offence proceedings in applications nos. 16683/17, 79906/17, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 4841/18, 5270/18, 5340/18, 6493/18 and 11453/18 entail violations of the principles of the equality of arms, adversarial procedure and impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016)?
4. Were the applicants in applications nos. 79906/17 (in both sets of proceedings), 5270/18 and 6493/18 able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?
5. Was Mr Shendakov (application no. 6493/18) given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his version of events, in particular by calling defence witnesses, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?
6. Did the local authorities’ decisions refusing to approve the locations and/or time chosen by the applicants in applications nos. 39696/12, 77503/12, 80338/17, 80340/17, 80358/17, 80374/17, 80378/17, 80382/17, 2940/18, 5340/18 and 11453/18 for the public events planned by them contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the Convention?
7. Did the applicants in application no. 77503/12 have an effective remedy in respect of their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention about the refusal to approve the locations and/or time of the public events planned by them, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular:
– Did they have at their disposal an effective remedy which would allow an enforceable judicial decision to be obtained on the authorities’ refusal to approve the location and/or time of a public event before its planned date?
– Did they have an effective post-hoc remedy? In particular, did the scope of judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure include an assessment of “necessity in a democratic society” and “proportionality” of the local authorities’ proposal to change the location and/or time of a public event?
If no effective remedy was available to the applicants in application no. 77503/12, have they complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Artyomov v. Russia, no. 14146/02, §§ 108-18, 27 May 2010)?
8. Were the applicants in applications nos. 39696/12 and 29316/13 subjected to discrimination on account of their political opinion, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11?
9. Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in application no. 79906/17? In particular:
- Had the offences under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences for which the applicant was prosecuted arisen from identical facts or facts which were substantially the same?
- Was there a duplication of proceedings? In particular, when there was a “final” decision in each set of proceedings?
- Alternatively (see A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, § 126, ECHR 2016), did the proceedings have a sufficiently close connection - both in substance and in time - with each other and constitute complementary legal responses to socially offensive conduct (ibid., §§ 121‑25 and 130-32)? If yes, did such accumulated legal responses represent an excessive burden for the applicant and entail, in substance or in effect, double jeopardy to his detriment (ibid.)? Were the possible consequences of organising the legal treatment of the conduct concerned in such a manner proportionate and foreseeable for the applicant?
APPENDIX
No.
Application
no.
Lodged on
Applicant name
date of birth
place of
residence
Represented by
Aim of the public event
Location
Date
Measures applied within the notification procedure
Administrative charges
Measures applied within the administrative‑offence procedure
Final domestic decisions
The applicants’ actions as established by the domestic courts
39696/12*
14/05/2012
Andrey Aleksandrovich SEMENOV
02/03/1979
The Moscow Region
Mr D. LESNYAK
Strategy-31 public event,
Triumfalnaya Square, Moscow
31/08/2011
Public event in support of the freedom of assembly,
Pyatnitskaya Street, Moscow,
20/07/2012
Refusal to approve the location of the public event
Approved
20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“The CAO”)
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
19.3 of the CAO
administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (10,000 Russia roubles (RUB))
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to four days’ administrative detention
Administrative-offence procedure: 30/11/2011
The Tverskoy District Court of Moscow
03/10/2012
the Zamoskvoretskiy Ditrict Court of Moscow
07/09/2012
the Zamoskvoretskiy Ditrict Court of Moscow
The applicant participated in an unauthorised public event
The applicant held a political banner “Russia without Putin” which did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event;
The applicant resisted lawful arrest for holding the above-mentioned banner
77503/12*
18/10/2012
Pavel
Nikolayevich NAGIBIN
06/06/1971
Rostov-on-Don
Vladislav
Yuryevich RYAZANTSEV
20/10/1990
Rostov-on-Don
A public event in support of fair elections,
the centre of Rostov-on-Don,
04/02/2012
A march for fair elections,
the centre of Rostov-on-Don,
24, 25 or 26/02/2012
A march for fair elections,
the centre of Rostov-on-Don,
26/02/2012
Refusal to approve the location and time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (the LDPR) at the same location and time
Refusal to approve the location of the public event
Refusal to approve the location and time of the public event
20.2 § 1 of the CAO
the first applicant’s escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)
Notification proceedings: 19/04/2012,
The Rostov Regional Court;
Administrative offence proceedings: 25/07/2012,
the Proletarskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don
28/05/2012
The Rostov Regional Court
24/05/2012
The Rostov Regional Court
The first applicant organised an unauthorised public event. The domestic courts rejected his argument that he had participated the LDPR’s public event, finding that, by making a speech in support of fair elections and by distributing leaflets, he had organised a separate event
29316/13*
02/04/2013
Galina
Fedorovna TIKHENKO
03/03/1947
The Volgograd Region
The Independence Day commemoration,
Mamayev Kurgan, Volgograd,
12/06/2012
Approved
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to an oral reprimand
05/10/2012
The Volzhskiy Town Court of the Volgograd Region
The applicant distributed and waved banners that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event
16683/17*
25/02/2017
Dmitriy
Sergeyevich YARTSEV
21/02/1988
Moscow
Ms T. GLUSHKOVA
A march for labour rights, the centre of Moscow,
01/05/2016
Approved
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
26/08/2016
The Moscow City Court
The applicant chanted slogans (“Stop cops’ abuse”, “Down with the police state”) that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event
79906/17*
07/11/2017
Aleksandr Sergeyevich MIRONOV
24/05/1979
Moscow
Mr O. BEZNISKO
“Immortal regiment” march,
The centre of Moscow,
09/05/2017
Approved
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
19.3 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to seven days’ administrative detention
08/10/2017
The Moscow City Court
16/05/2017
The Moscow City Court
The applicant distributed leaflets portraying the President and the Prime Minister with a caption “It is not their victory” that did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event
The applicant did not obey the police’s order to stop distributing leaflets
80338/17
10/11/2017
Vyacheslav Borisovich RYBAKOV
25/01/1966
Chebokasary
Mr A. GLUKHOV
Anti-corruption protest,
Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,
26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
19.3 of the CAO
Conviction to thirty days’ community work
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)
15/08/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
11/05/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;
The applicant did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities
80340/17
10/11/2017
Yuriy
Borisovich SIDOROV
25/07/1987
The Tula Region
Mr A. GLUKHOV
Anti-corruption protest,
Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,
26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
19.3 of the CAO
Conviction to thirty-two days’ community work
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)
31/08/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
30/05/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;
The applicant did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities
80358/17
10/11/2017
Dmitriy
Martin ROBSON
04/11/1997
Cheboksary
Mr A.GLUKHOV
Anti-corruption protest,
Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,
26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time
19.3 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)
11/05/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities
80374/17
10/11/2017
Roman Mikhaylovich ROMANOV
25/06/1998
Cheboksary
Mr A. GLUKHOV
Anti-corruption protest,
Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,
26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time
19.3 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)
12/05/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities
80378/17
10/11/2017
Konstantin Aleksandrovich ISHUTOV
15/06/1983
Cheboksary
Mr A. GLUKHOV
Anti-corruption protest,
Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,
26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
19.3 of the CAO
Conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 500)
21/09/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
30/05/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event;
The applicant did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities
80382/17
10/11/2017
Semen Aleksandrovich KOCHKIN
21/09/1993
Cheboksary
Mr A. GLUKHOV
Anti-corruption protest,
Chapayev Park, Cheboksary,
26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event was scheduled by the Young Guard association at the same location and time
20.2 § 1 of the CAO
19.3 of the CAO
Conviction to thirty days’ community work
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)
Notification proceedings:
19/06/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
31/08/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
11/05/2017
The Supreme Court of the Chuvashiya Republic
The applicant organised an unauthorised public event simultaneously with the approved Young Guard’s public event; he organised a group of people who waved anti-government banners and shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the Young Guard’s event
The applicant participated in the Young Guard’s public event; he shouted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of that event; he did not obey the police’s order to stop the above unlawful activities
2940/18
25/12/2017
Yevgeniy Aleksandrovich YELFIMOV
10/10/1995
Vladivostok
Mr K. TEREKHOV
Anti-corruption protest,
Privokzalnaya
Square,
Vladivostok,
26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
28/06/2017
The Primorskiy Regional Court
The applicant waved an anti-government banner and chanted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event
4841/18*
17/01/2018
Andrey Alekseyevich YAROTSKOY
20/08/1991
Vladivostok
Mr K. TEREKHOV
“Day of the City” march
Svetlanskaya Street, Vladivotok
01/07/2017
Approved
20.2 § 8 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
10/08/2017
The Primorskiy Regional Court
The applicant held a banner depicting Mr Navalnyy and Mr Putin with a caption “Hold on Aleksey. Men is stronger than rats” that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved public event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event
5270/18
17/01/2018
Dmitriy Yevgenyevich RODIN
19/06/1979
The Moscow Region
Mr K. TEREKHOV, Mr D. SHEDOV
A meeting for maintaining the trolleybus network,
Suvorovskaya Square, Moscow,
29/01/2017
Approved
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
24/07/2017
The Moscow City Court
The applicant waved a banner “Bring the mayor’s office to liability”
that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved event
5340/18*
08/01/2018
Vladimir Romanovich YAROSLAVSKIY
20/10/1993
Vladivostok
Mr K. TEREKHOV
Anti-corruption protest,
Privokzalnaya Square, Vladivostok, 26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
12/07/2017
The Primorskiy Regional Court
The applicant waved an anti-government banner and chanted anti-government slogans that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event
6493/18
28/01/2017
Mikhail Anatolyevich SHENDAKOV
31/01/1965
The Moscow Region
Mr D. SHEDOV
A meeting for maintaining the trolleybus network,
Suvorovskaya Square, Moscow,
29/01/2017
Approved
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
28/07/2017
The Moscow City Court
The applicant waved a banner “Putin is the traitor of the Motherland and the enemy of the Russian people”
that did not correspond to the declared aims of the approved event
11453/18*
15/02/2018
Roman
Yuryevich GURYANOV
28/01/1999
the Primorskiy Region
Ms P. SIDELNIKOVA
Anti-corruption protest,
Privokzalnaya Square, Vladivostok, 26/03/2017
Refusal to approve the time of the public event on the ground that another public event to promote the National Guard Day was scheduled at the same location and time
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 5,000)
09/08/2017
The Primorskiy Regional Court, received on 19/08/2017
The applicant waved an anti-government banner that did not correspond to the aims of the approved National Guard Day event; he therefore participated in a separate unauthorised public event
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy