Communicated on 25 November 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 13140/16
Anastasiya Mikhaylovna SHEVELEVA against Russia
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the events of 19 July 2015 and the ensuing administrative-offence proceedings against the applicants.
On 19 July 2015 the four applicants together with two other persons were in the public park near Vorobyovy Gory, Moscow, making an amateur film “in the form of a sarcastic flash mob”. One of the actors was disguised to satirically represent President Putin; other participants who represented the people celebrating President Putin’s policies had placards with absurdist slogans. To film undisturbed, they selected a deserted area of the park. At around 9 p.m. a group of uniformed and plain-clothes police officers ran after the applicants, caught them one by one and, using force, put them in a police van. The applicants were brought to a police station where administrative-offence reports were drawn up. Each applicant was charged with a breach of the rules on participating in a public event (Article 20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO)). Before the domestic courts, the applicants denied that they had taken part in any “public event” within the meaning of the Public Events Act and insisted that they had been making a film and thus exercising their right to artistic expression. The first‑instance court heard the respective cases in the applicants’ absence, summarily dismissed their arguments and refused to summon as witnesses the police officers who had arrested the applicants. It considered that the applicants had taken part in an unauthorised public event in the form of a “meeting” within the meaning of section 2 of the Public Events Act and found each applicant guilty as charged and sentenced them to a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles. The convictions were upheld on appeal.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ respective right to freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention on account of the dispersal of the applicants’ gathering of 19 July 2015, their arrest and subsequent administrative-offence proceedings? Was there an interference with this right? If so, was the interference “prescribed by law”, and did it pursue a legitimate aim, within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention? Was it necessary in a democratic society?
The parties are invited to answer the following questions in detail.
(a) Do the provisions of the Public Events Act regarding the definition of a “public event” meet the criteria of quality of law set out in the Court’s case‑law? That is, are these provisions “accessible and foreseeable as to [their] effects” (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, §§ 30 and 32, ECHR 2004‑I)? In answering these questions, the Government are requested to provide references to the practice of domestic courts, if any, shedding light on what constitutes, respectively, a “gathering” (собрание); a “meeting” (митинг); a “demonstration” (демонстрация); a “march” (шествие); and a “static demonstration” (пикетирование).
(b) Did the applicants’ gathering in the Vorobyovy Gory park at 9 p.m. on a Sunday meet the criteria of a “meeting” within the meaning of the Public Events Act? In particular, given that it comprised six people, could the gathering be said to have been “a mass assembly of citizens”? Could the applicants foresee that their gathering would be considered a “meeting”?
(c) What criteria did the police officers rely on to classify the applicants’ gathering as a “public event” within the meaning of the Public Events Act? On what grounds did the police officers consider the applicants’ gathering unlawful?
(d) What legitimate aim(s) did the police officers pursue by dispersing the applicants’ gathering and by arresting the applicants?
(e) Was there a “pressing social need” to disperse the gathering of six people in a park on a Sunday night?
(f) Did the domestic courts examining the administrative-offence cases against the applicants apply the criteria set out in the Court’s case‑law regarding the necessity of an interference with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly? In particular, did they consider whether the applicants had pursued “the aim of publicly expressing an opinion on topical, mainly social or political issues”, a constituent requirement of a “meeting” within the meaning of section 2 of the Public Events Act, when faced with the applicants’ argument that the aim of their gathering had been to make a film?
2. Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention? Did the dispersal of the applicants’ gathering held for the purposes of making a film, their arrest and subsequent administrative-offence proceedings amount to an interference with this right, in particular, in the context of freedom of artistic expression? Was it “prescribed by law”? Which legitimate aim(s) listed in Article 10 § 2 of the Convention did it pursue? Was it necessary in a democratic society? Was there a “pressing social need” to prevent the applicants from finishing the filming?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ arrest and detention on the evening of 19 July 2015? In particular, were the applicants’ arrest and detention arbitrary? The parties are requested to provide a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding the applicants’ arrest and detention, including a timeline indicating the precise time of each applicant being arrested and released.
4. Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of each applicant on account of (a) the applicants’ absence from the court hearings and/or (b) the lack of a prosecuting party in the proceedings before the courts (see Karelin v. Russia, no. 926/08, 20 September 2016)?
5. Was each applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to defend herself/himself, to contest adverse evidence, to examine witnesses against her/him and to obtain, under the same conditions, the attendance of witnesses on her/his behalf, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention?
6. Did the applicants have effective domestic remedies regarding the alleged violations of Articles 10 and 11, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
List of applications
1.13140/16Sheveleva v. Russia
2.13162/16Mikhaylov v. Russia
3.20802/16Roslovtsev v. Russia
4.24703/16Zenyakina v. Russia
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy