Communicated on 7 June 2018
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 25557/17
Tatyana Fedorovna SVINTSOVA against Russia
and 10 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASES
The applicants are Russian nationals. They were arrested during unauthorised public assemblies and convicted of administrative offences, although each of them denied participation in the public assembly in question.
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 arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against them violated their rights under Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention.
Individual complaints
1. Mr Yermolayev (application no. 54083/17) complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the allegedly inhuman conditions of detention at the police station and that he did not have an effective remedy for that complaint.
2. The applicants in applications nos. 53179/17, 54083/17, 83941/17, 3724/18 and 9848/18 complain that their escorting to the police stations and/or administrative arrest were unlawful and unjustified in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
3. The applicants in applications nos. 25557/17, 54083/17, 83271/17, 83319/17, 83941/17, 2702/18, 3724/18, 6378/18, 9691/18 and 9848/18 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. 25557/17, 83271/17, 83319/17, 83941/17, 2702/18, 3724/18, 6378/18, 9691/18 and 9848/18 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. The applicants in applications nos. 25557/17 and 2702/18 complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about the domestic courts’ refusal to examine defence witnesses, in particular the eye-witnesses of their arrests.
6. Mr Yermolayev (application no. 54083/17) complains under Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention about the absence of a suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention.
7. Mr Melnikov (application no. 3724/18) 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 QUESTIONS
1. Given that the applicants denied their participation in the public events in question, did their escorting to the police stations, administrative arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against them constitute an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the Convention (see Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, §§ 72 and 73, 3 October 2013; Müdür Duman v. Turkey, no. 15450/03, § 30, 6 October 2015; and Agit Demir v. Turquie, no. 36475/10, §§ 60-72, 27 February 2018)?
2. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?
CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
1. Were the conditions of Mr Yermolayev’s detention in the police station from 26 to 28 March 2016 (application no. 54083/17) compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? Did Mr Yermolayev have an effective remedy for his complaint in respect of poor conditions of detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3?
2. Were the applicants in applications nos. 53179/17, 54083/17, 83941/17, 3724/18 and 9848/18 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 escorting and/or arresting 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. 25557/17, 54083/17, 83271/17, 83319/17, 83941/17, 2702/18, 3724/18, 6378/18, 9691/18 and 9848/18 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. 25557/17, 83271/17, 83319/17, 83941/17, 2702/18, 3724/18, 6378/18, 9691/18 and 9848/18 able to examine witnesses against them, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?
5. Were the applicants in applications nos. 25557/17 and 2702/18 given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their version of events, in particular by calling defence witnesses, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention?
6. Did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine Mr Yermolayev’s right of appeal to have his conviction or sentence reviewed (application no. 54083/17), as required by Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (compare Shvydka v. Ukraine, no. 17888/12, §§ 48-55, 30 October 2014, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 176-191, 10 April 2018, not yet final)?
7. Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention in application no. 3724/18? 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
Administrative charges
Measures applied
Final domestic decision
The applicants’ actions as established by the domestic courts on the basis of police reports
The applicant’s version of events
25557/17*
06/03/2017
Tatyana Fedorovna SVINTSOVA
11/05/1973
the Moscow
Region
Mr
O. BEZNISKO
Meeting in support of Nadezhda
Savchenko,
Triumfalnaya Square, Moscow
08/03/2016
20.2 § 5 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“The CAO”)
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (10,000 Russia roubles (RUB))
08/09/2016,
the Moscow City Court
The applicant shouted slogans
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that she had not taken part in the protest event; she had stood apart holding a drawing by her son and talking to journalists
53179/17*
13/07/2017
Vladimir Yuryevich DOROKHOV
26/04/1985
the Tula Region
Mr
K. TEREKHOV
Anti-government protest,
Lenin Square, Tula,
26/03/2017
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
27/04/2017, the Tula Regional Court
The applicant was in a group of persons walking in the streets and carrying banners and balloons
The applicant claimed before the first-instance court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had just walked by on his way home from the office to the nearby bus station
54083/17
17/07/2017
Ilya Aleksandrovich YERMOLAYEV
25/06/1984
Khabarovsk
Mr
K. TEREKHOV
Anti-government protest,
Tverskaya Street,
Moscow, 26/03/2017
19.3 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to seven days’ administrative detention
31/03/2017, the Moscow City Court
The applicant, together with more than 300 persons, hindered the passage of pedestrians and did not comply with the police’s order to stop breaching public order
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had just walked by on his way to a nearby shop
83271/17*
03/12/2017
Mariya Aleksandrovna VOYEVODINA
24/11/1980
St Petersburg
Ms
S. RATNIKOVA
Anti-government protest,
Nevskiy Avenue,
St Petersburg, 26/03/2017
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
29/06/2017, the St Petersburg City Court
The applicant shouted political slogans
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that she had not taken part in the protest event; she had just walked by on her way to the nearby train station where she intended to buy train tickets
83319/17*
03/12/2017
Oleg
Otariyevich KOIAVA
17/02/1978
St Petersburg
Ms
S. RATNIKOVA
Anti-government protest,
Nevskiy Avenue,
St Petersburg, 26/03/2017
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
06/07/2017, the St Petersburg City Court
The applicant shouted political slogans
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had just walked by on his way to the nearby train station where he intended to buy train tickets
83941/17
08/12/2017
Nikita
Igorevich
ROLIN
13/09/1998
Moscow
Ms
M. AGALTSOVA
Anti-government protest,
Tverskaya Street,
Moscow, 26/03/2017
19.3 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 1,000)
08/06/2017, the Moscow City Court
The applicant shouted anti-government slogans and did not comply with the police order to stop breaching public order
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had come to Tverskaya Street to meet his friend
2702/18*
16/12/2017
Amir
Ramilevich VYALSHIN
17/08/1997
the Tatarstan
Republic
Ms
I. KHOLODTSOVA
Anti-government protest,
Tverskaya Street,
Moscow, 26/03/2017
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)
12/07/2017, the Moscow City Court
The applicant waved ambiguous anti-government banners
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he has been arrested immediately after leaving a restaurant in Tverskaya Street
3724/18
29/12/2017
Sergey
Yuryevich MELNIKOV
16/09/1964
St Petersburg
Ms
K. KORCHILOVA
Anti-corruption protest,
Marsovo Pole
Square,
St Petersburg,
12/06/2017
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
19.3 of the CAO
conviction to a fine (RUB 15,000)
administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 600)
29/06/2017, the St Petersburg City Court
29/06/2017, the St Petersburg City Court
The applicant was in an immediate vicinity – less than ten metres from – persons shouting political slogans and waving yellow toy ducks
The applicant did not comply with the police order to stop participating in the unauthorised public event
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had come to Marsovo Pole Square to take part in official public celebrations of Russia’s day; he had been arrested while filming the festivities with his smartphone
6378/18*
16/12/2017
Stanislav Olegovich BELYANSKIY
08/02/1965
Moscow
Anti-government protest,
Tverskaya Street,
Moscow, 12/06/2017
19.3 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to ten days’ administrative detention
19/06/2017, the Moscow City Court
The applicant waved banners, distributed leaflets and shouted anti-government slogans and did not comply with the police order to stop breaching public order
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had come to Tverskaya Street to take part in official public celebrations of Russia’s day; he had been arrested while distributing leaflets describing rules of conduct during public events and afterwards in case of arrest
9691/18*
09/02/2018
Konstantin Vladimirovich FILIPPOV
20/05/1986
Moscow
Anti-government protest,
Tverskaya Street,
Moscow, 02/04/2017
20.2 § 6.1 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 20,000)
10/08/2017, the Moscow City Court
The applicant shouted slogans and walked on the road hindering traffic
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that although he had been initially part of the protesters’ group, he had then left them to go to a shop; he had been arrested immediately after going out of the shop
9848/18*
12/02/2018
Filipp Vladimirovich KHODANOV
10/01/1995
Bryansk
Ms I.KHOLODTSOVA
Anti-government protest,
Tverskaya Street,
Moscow, 26/03/2017
20.2 § 5 of the CAO
Escorting to a police station, administrative arrest and conviction to a fine (RUB 10,000)
14/08/2017, the Moscow City Court
The applicant waved ambiguous anti-government banners
The applicant claimed in the domestic proceedings and before the Court that he had not taken part in the protest event; he had come to Tverskaya Street to meet his friends
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy