Published on 26 July 2021
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 5568/19
Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV and Vitaliy Otariyevich NEBIYERIDZE against Russia
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 5 July 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
Mr Simonov and Mr Nebiyeridze (application no. 5568/19), human rights activists, notified the Sochi Town Administration of their intention to hold a public event in the town centre, with five people expected to take part. The aim of the event was to protest against reinforced security measures during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup. The Town Administration refused to approve the venue and the time of the event. It relied on Presidential Decree no. 202 of 9 May 2017 introducing temporary restrictions on public events during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup and the 2018 FIFA World Cup and on its own decree providing that during those periods all public events unrelated to sport competitions were to be held in a park some twenty kilometres away from the town centre, between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m.
Mr Logvin (application no. 17386/19) held a solo demonstration in the centre of Moscow protesting against a law providing for candidate filtering in regional elections. He was escorted to the police station, administratively arrested and subsequently fined for a breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events. The domestic courts found that the applicant had failed to notify his solo demonstration in breach of Presidential Decree no. 202 of 9 May 2017 introducing temporary restrictions on public events during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup and the 2018 FIFA World Cup.
Mr Simonov (application no. 37182/19) was working on a report on breaches of labour rights of workers constructing new venues for the 2018 FIFA World Cup. He was arrested while taking photographs of the construction works of one of the stadiums of the World Cup in Volgograd. He was taken to a police station where his identity documents were checked, his belongings searched and his fingerprints taken. He was released about three hours later.
Mr Simonov (application no. 39278/19) was again arrested on his arrival by train to Sochi and brought to a police station. After his identity was checked, it was revealed that he was registered in the “Rubin” database held by the Federal Security Service (“the FSB”) as a “person under special surveillance”. The police contacted the FSB who said that the applicant was registered in the database by mistake, that he was not dangerous and could be released. The applicant challenged the actions by the police and the FSB before the courts, asking, among others, that his name be deleted from the “Rubin” database. The courts rejected his complaints against the police; they did not examine his request to have his name deleted from the database.
In application no. 15205/20 Mr Simonov’s home was searched in connection with a criminal charge of forgery against him. The hard drives of his computers were seized, among others.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Application no. 5568/19
Did the refusal to approve the time and venue of Mr Simonov’s and Mr Nebiyeridze’s public event violate their right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention (compare Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 20170)? In particular, did the domestic legal provisions introducing temporary time and place restrictions on public events during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup and the 2018 FIFA World Cup meet the “quality of law” requirements? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim and was “necessary in a democratic society”?
Application no. 17386/19
1. Was Mr Logvin deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were his escorting to the police station and his administrative arrest carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see Lashmankin, cited above, §§ 486-92)?
2. Did Mr Logvin have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular,
(i) Did the lack of a prosecuting party and the allegedly excessively active role of the trial court 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)?
(ii) Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
3. Did the termination of Mr Logvin’s solo demonstration, his escorting to the police station, administrative arrest and conviction of an administrative offence violate his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention (compare Novikova and Others v. Russia, nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26 April 2016)? In particular, did the domestic legal provisions requiring a prior notification for solo demonstrations during the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup and the 2018 FIFA World Cup meet the “quality of law” requirements? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society?
Application no. 37182/19
1. Did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a)-(e) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? What was the legal basis for Mr Simonov’s arrest? Was he arrested in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law?
2. Has there been a violation of Mr Simonov’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convection, as a result of the search of his belongings? Was the interference prescribed by law? Did it pursue a legitimate aim? Was it “necessary in a democratic society”?
3. Has there been a violation of Mr Simonov’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convection, as a result of the taking of his fingerprints? Were his fingerprints stored? Was the interference prescribed by law? In particular, does the legal framework governing the taking and retention of fingerprints meet the “quality of law” requirements by providing for adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse (see S and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, §§ 99 and 103, ECHR 2008)? Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim? Was it “necessary in a democratic society” (compare S. and Marper, cited above; and Gaughran v. the United Kingdom, no. 45245/15, 13 February 2020)?
4. Has there been an interference with Mr Simonov’s freedom of expression (in particular his right to receive and impart information and ideas) within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention as a result of his arrest for taking photographs? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 (compare Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland [GC], no. 931/13, § 128, 27 June 2017, and Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 123, 13 February 2018?
Application no. 39278/19
1. Did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a)-(e) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (compare Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, §§ 49-57, 21 June 20110)? What was the legal basis for Mr Simonov’s arrest? Was he arrested in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law?
2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? If so, given that Mr Simonov’s claim to have his name deleted from the “Rubin” database (информационная база данных “Рубин”) was not examined by the courts, did he have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8 of the Convention?
(i) Did the registration of Mr Simonov’s name in the “Rubin” database and the measures taken against him on 19 October 2017 constitute an interference with his right to respect for his private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (see Shimovolos, cited above, §§ 64‑66)?
(ii) Was any such interference in accordance with the law? Did the legal provisions governing the creation and maintenance of the “Rubin” database meet the “quality of law” requirements by providing for adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse (see Gardel v. France, no. 16428/05, § 62, ECHR 2009; and Catt v. the United Kingdom, no. 43514/15, §§ 94‑107, 24 January 2019)? Were these legal acts officially published?
The Government are requested to submit the legal acts governing the creation and maintenance of the “Rubin” database. They are also requested to explain the applicable safeguards, controls and guarantees against abuse. In particular, they are requested to specify categories of persons liable to be registered in the “Rubin” database; the State agencies or officials which take the decision to register the person; the data which is collected about registered persons; the cases in which the collected data may be disclosed to other State agencies or to the registered person concerned; procedures for preserving the integrity and confidentiality of data and procedures for its destruction, the bodies or officials reviewing compliance with domestic law; and the possibility to complain to an independent body in case of abuse.
(iii) Was any such interference proportionate to the legitimate aim(s) sought to be achieved (see Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, ECHR 2006‑VII)?
Application no. 15205/20
As regards the search of Mr Simonov’s premises, did the interference with his right to respect for his private life, home and correspondence pursue a legitimate aim, was it “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
List of applications
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
5568/19
Simonov and Nebiyeridze
v. Russia
13/12/2018
Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV
1983
Sochi
Russian
Vitaliy Otariyevich NEBIYERIDZE
1968
Sochi
Russian
Mr A. PEREDRUK
2.
17386/19
Logvin
v. Russia
20/03/2019
Nikolay Andreyevich LOGVIN
1993
Moscow
Russian
Ms I. YATSENKO
3.
37182/19
Simonov
v. Russia
09/07/2019
Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV
1983
Sochi
Russian
Mr A. LAPTEV
4.
39278/19
Simonov
v. Russia
09/07/2019
Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV
1983
Sochi
Russian
Mr A. POPKOV
5.
15205/20
Simonov
v. Russia
12/03/2020
Semen Leonidovich SIMONOV
1983
Sochi
Russian
Mr A. POPKOV
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy