Общественное объединение "Сутяжник"

Главная страница

Новости судебных дел

Судебное дело "А.В. Захаркин против России"


Communication of the ECHR to the Russian authorities of Application no. 25501/07 Marina Viktorovna NOVIKOVA against Russia and 16 other applications (see list appended)

 

16.04.2014

 

                                            Communicated on 24 March 2014

   FIRST SECTION

   Application no. 25501/07
   Marina Viktorovna NOVIKOVA against Russia
   and 16 other applications
   (see list appended)

This communication in 
Russian

                             STATEMENT OF FACTS

   I.  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AND THE COMPLAINTS

   The applicants are Russian nationals.

   A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

   The  facts  of  the  cases,  as  submitted  by  the applicants, may be
   summarised as follows.

    1. Application  no. 25501/07  was  lodged  on 27 April 2007 by Marina
       Viktorovna NOVIKOVA, who was born on 28 February 1972 and lives in
       Moscow.

   On  10  November 2006 the applicant staged a demonstration in front of
   the  State  Duma in Moscow and held a banner reading "Psychiatry kills
   our  children  on our taxes". According to her, this was a solo static
   demonstration  (одиночное  пикетирование)  (see "Relevant domestic law
   and  practice"  below).  In  ten minutes, she was approached by police
   officers  who  then took her to the district police station. She spent
   some three hours there and was then allowed to leave. An arrest record
   was  compiled;  the  legal  grounds  and  reasons  for  her arrest are
   unclear.

   The  record  of  administrative offence states that she was accused of
   "taking  part,  together  with  other  citizens, in a demonstration in
   respect  of  which  no  prior  notification was provided to the public
   authorities".  Her  actions  were classified under Article 20.2 of the
   Code   of  Administrative  Offences  ("the  CAO",  hereinafter)  which
   regulates  the  penalties  applied to violations of the regulations on
   public gatherings detailed, inter alia, in the Public Assemblies Act.

   Officer  G.  submitted  a  written report to his hierarchical superior
   indicating  that  the  applicant  "had  been arrested and taken to the
   police  station  for  violating  the regulations on public assemblies,
   namely, Article 20.2 of the CAO".

   On  an  unspecified date, the case against the applicant was submitted
   to the justice of the peace of the Tverskoy District. According to the
   authorities  (see  below),  on  10  November  2006  the  applicant was
   summoned  to  a  hearing  on  15 November 2006 but refused to sign the
   document.  According to the applicant, the order listing a hearing for
   15  November 2006 was only issued on 14 November 2006, and she had not
   been aware of it.

   The applicant made no written submissions to the justice of the peace.
   Having  examined  the  file,  on  15  November 2006 the judge issued a
   judgment  finding  the  applicant guilty under Article 20.2 of the CAO
   and  imposing  a  fine  of  1,000  Russian  roubles  (RUB)^. The judge
   considered that the applicant had been apprised of the hearing but had
   refused  to  sign  the  summons. The court decided to proceed with the
   case  in  her  absence  and  considered  that  the  applicant had been
   afforded an adequate opportunity to make written or oral submissions.

   Referring  to  the  arrest  record, the offence record and G.'s report
   (see  above), the court considered that the applicant had participated
   in  a  demonstration  after which some five unspecified people and the
   applicant  had  been  arrested.  In  the court's view, the applicant's
   behaviour  amounted  to  participation  in a public assembly which the
   public authorities had not been notified of in advance.

   The  applicant  sought  re-examination  of  the  case on appeal by the
   Tverskoy  District  Court  of  Moscow. On 5 December 2006 it heard the
   applicant  and  upheld the judgment of the justice of the peace. On 23
   January  2007  the Deputy President of the Moscow City Court confirmed
   those court decisions on supervisory review.

   Complaint:   The  applicant  alleges  that  the  authorities'  actions
   disclose a violation of her freedom of expression.

    2. Application no . 44135/08 wa s lo dged on  31  July 2008 by  Denis
       Viktorovich  MATVEYEV,  who  was  born  on 10 December 1977 and is
       being held in a temporary detention centre in Naberezhniye Chelny.

   Apparently,   the  applicant  notified  the  local  authority  of  his
   intention  to  hold  a  public  assembly  in front of the Naberezhniye
   Chelny  Prosecutor's  Office  on  22  April  2008. After the authority
   disagreed, he decided to stage a solo demonstration.

   On  22  April  2008 the applicant held the demonstration. According to
   the  authorities,  he  set up a tent and a banner, gathered passers-by
   and  voiced  his  claims to them. After four hours, he was arrested by
   the police.

   (a)  On  24  April  2008  the justice of the peace found the applicant
   guilty  under Article 20.2 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 1,000.
   The  court  stated  that the applicant had intended to hold a non-stop
   hunger-strike  (for  an  indefinite period of time) while displaying a
   banner  reading  "Hunger  strike.  Call  for  signatures".  The  court
   concluded  that  the applicant had intended to hold a public assembly.
   The  court considered that, in breach of the Public Assemblies Act, he
   had  failed  to  specify  how  he  would  ensure  that public order be
   maintained and any necessary medical aid be provided during the event.
   The court also mentioned that the Act prohibited public events between
   11 p.m. and 7 a.m.

   The  applicant  appealed  to  the Naberezhniye Chelny Town Court. By a
   decision  of  7  May  2008  the  Town Court upheld the judgment of the
   justice of the peace. The applicant obtained a copy of the decision on
   an   unspecified   date.  On  3  June  2008  the  applicant  lodged  a
   supervisory-review  appeal  with  the  Supreme  Court of the Tatarstan
   Republic.  By  a  letter  of  8 July 2008 the Deputy President of that
   court   dismissed  it.  The  applicant  received  that  letter  on  an
   unspecified date.

   (b)  In  separate  proceedings, on 7 May 2008 the justice of the peace
   found  the  applicant  guilty under Article 19.3 of the CAO because he
   had  disobeyed  the police order to stop the demonstration on 22 April
   2008.  The  court  sentenced  him  to  seven  days  of  administrative
   detention.  On  8  May  2008  the  Town Court upheld the judgment in a
   summary  manner.  The applicant obtained a copy of the appeal decision
   on  an  unspecified  date.  The  case  was  not subject to supervisory
   review.

   Complaints:  Referring  to Articles 7, 10 and 11 of the Convention the
   applicant  complains  about  his  arrest  on  22  April  2008  and his
   conviction  in  the  administrative  offence  proceedings and that the
   supervisory  court's  failure  to  issue a procedural decision impeded
   further appeal to the Supreme Court of Russia, in breach of Articles 6
   and 13 of the Convention.

    3. Application no  . 2886/09 wa  s lo  dged on   6  November 2008 by 
       Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich BASHKOV, who was born on 20 May 1977 and
       lives in Yekaterinburg.

   In  the  afternoon  of  13  December  2007 the applicant staged a solo
   demonstration  in  front of the regional office of the Ministry of the
   Interior  in  Yekaterinburg.  He  was holding a poster ("УБОП - УБийцы
   ОПпозиции!")  criticizing  the Organised Crime Unit (УБОП) and blaming
   them  for  the  recent murder of an opposition activist. Around 4 p.m.
   several  police  officers  approached the applicant. According to him,
   they tore apart the poster he was holding and took him to the regional
   office of the Ministry of the Interior. Soon thereafter, the applicant
   was  taken to the local police station. No escorting/arrest record was
   compiled. The applicant was allowed to leave at 5.45 p.m.

   The applicant complained to the the regional office of the Ministry of
   the Interior. On 7 March 2008 his complaint was dismissed.

   The  applicant  also brought court proceedings challenging the actions
   of the police in respect of him, including the unlawful deprivation of
   his  liberty.  By  a  judgment  of  7 April 2008 the Zheleznodorozhniy
   District  Court  of  Yekaterinburg  considered  that  the  police  had
   unlawfully disrupted the solo demonstration. The court also considered
   that  the  applicant  had  not  been  "deprived  of  [his] liberty" in
   accordance  with  the  procedure  set  out under the CAO in respect of
   arrest  or  escorting  to  the  police  station.  On 7 August 2008 the
   Sverdlovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment.

   Complaints:  The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention
   that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty on 13 December 2007 and
   that  he  could obtain no compensation, and that the disruption of his
   demonstration  and  his  unlawful  arrest  amounted  to a violation of
   Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

    4. Application no . 7941/09 wa s lo dged on  19 December 2008 by Gleb
       Vadimovich  EDELEV,  who  was  born  on  25 May 1969  and lives in
       Yekaterinburg.

   The  applicant,  a  local newspaper journalist, was present during the
   solo  demonstration  held  by  Mr  Bashkov on 13 December 2007. He was
   taken  to the regional office of the Ministry of the Interior and then
   to  the  local  police  station  where  he  remained for one hour. The
   applicant  brought  civil  proceedings  challenging the actions of the
   police  officers. By a judgment of 22 July 2008 the Kirovskiy District
   Court  of  Yekaterinburg dismissed his claims. On 4 September 2008 the
   Sverdlovsk  Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant obtained
   a copy of the appeal decision on an unspecified date.

   Complaints:  The  applicant  complains  under  Article  5  that he was
   unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of his liberty on 13 December 2007
   and  could  obtain no compensation, and that the actions by the police
   in  respect  of  him  disclosed  a  violation  of  Article  10  of the
   Convention,  in  particular  in  relation  to his right to receive and
   impart information and ideas.

    5. Application no . 40377/10 wa s lodged on 19 June 2010 by Aleksandr
       Vladimirovich  ZAKHARKIN,  who was born on 1 August 1961 and lives
       in  Surgut,  in  the  Khanty-Mansiyskiy  Autonomous  Region. He is
       represented  by  Sergey  Ivanovich  BELYAYEV and Anton Leonidovich
       BURKOV.

   The  applicant  was  the leader of a trade union in a private company.
   His  co-workers  expressed  their  wish  to  hold a public assembly on
   Constitution  Day  on 12 December 2009. The applicant, in his capacity
   as  trade  union  leader, decided to help them. According to him, such
   help  was  "an  indirect expression of his own opinion". The applicant
   distributed banners and explained that it would be more practicable to
   stage  solo  demonstrations. To avoid prosecution for holding a public
   assembly  without  notifying the authorities in advance, the applicant
   suggested  that  his  co-workers  position themselves at some distance
   from each other, for instance on different streets. At the time, there
   was  no federal or regional statutory requirement concerning a minimum
   distance  between  simultaneous  solo  demonstrations  (see  "Relevant
   domestic law and practice").

   The applicant was then arrested and taken to the police station, where
   he  stayed  for  three  hours.  On 18 December 2009 the justice of the
   peace  found  him  guilty  under Article 20.2 of the CAO and imposed a
   fine  of  RUB  1,500  on him. On 22 January 2010 the Surgut Town Court
   upheld  the  judgment.  The  applicant  did  not apply for supervisory
   review of those court decisions.

   Complaints:  The  applicant  complains  under Articles 5 and 13 of the
   Convention  that  he  was  unlawfully  and arbitrarily deprived of his
   liberty  on  12 December 2009; under Articles 6 and 13 that he was not
   given  legal  assistance  free of charge in the administrative offence
   proceedings,  and that the court took the function of prosecution; and
   under  Articles  10,  11 and 13 that he was impeded in organising solo
   demonstrations  held  by  trade  union members and was deprived of his
   liberty and fined.

    6. Application no.  57569/11 was  lodg ed on 2 6 August 2011 by Yuriy
       Ignatyevich  MATSNEV, who was born on 27 October 1937 and lives in
       Kaliningrad.

   On  30 July 2010 the applicant staged a solo demonstration in front of
   the  Kaliningrad  Regional Administration building. He was arrested by
   the  police and taken to the police station. He remained there for two
   hours  and  was  then  allowed  to  leave.  No  administrative offence
   proceedings were instituted against him.

   The  applicant  brought  civil  proceedings  seeking  RUB  500,000  as
   compensation   in  respect  of  non-pecuniary  damage  caused  by  the
   authorities'  actions. By a judgment of 14 March 2010, the Tsentralnyy
   District  Court  of  Kaliningrad  acknowledged  that the taking of the
   applicant  to  the  police  station  and  his retention there had been
   unlawful.  The court awarded him RUB 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary
   damage.^ However, the court dismissed his claim concerning the alleged
   destruction  of a banner by the police. On 25 May 2011 the Kaliningrad
   Regional Court upheld the judgment.

   Complaints: The applicant complains that he was unlawfully deprived of
   his  liberty  and awarded a derisory sum in compensation, and that the
   circumstances  of  the case disclosed a violation of Article 10 of the
   Convention.

    7. Application no. 66314/11 was lodged on 7 October 2011 by Aleksandr
       Alekseyevich  DEMIN,  who  was  born  on 27 June 1954 and lives in
       Syktyvkar, in the Komi Republic.

   (a)  At  2  p.m.  on  10  December  2011  the  applicant  held  a solo
   demonstration.  He  held banners reading "We stand for fair elections"
   and  "Shame  on the elections in Komi". At 2.25 p.m. he was approached
   by  police  officers P. and Z. who, for unspecified reasons, asked him
   to show his identity documents. According to officer P., the applicant
   disobeyed  this order. Having consulted their hierarchical superior in
   relation  to  the  contents  of  the  banners,  the  officers took the
   applicant  to the police station. Later on, during a police inquiry in
   February  2012,  P. stated that he had informed the on-duty officer of
   the  applicant's name; the on-duty officer had ordered him to take the
   applicant to the police station as a criminal suspect.

   No  record  of escorting him to the police station or record of arrest
   was  compiled.  According  to  the  logbook of the police station, the
   applicant was admitted there at 3 p.m. The applicant was then taken to
   the town police department as he resembled a theft suspect (Caucasian,
   around  50  years  old).  He  was  made  to  give  fingerprints and be
   photographed  against his will (according to the applicant). As it was
   considered  that he had not been involved in the theft, he was allowed
   to leave at or around 3.30 p.m.

   The  applicant  sued  the  police  in  relation to the above-mentioned
   actions. On 17 July 2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court of the Komi Republic
   dismissed his claims.

   The   court   considered  that  the  applicant  had  consented  to  be
   photographed  and  have  his  fingerprints  taken  and that the police
   officers  had  acted  in compliance with the Police Act, in particular
   when  they  had  taken  the  applicant  to  the  police station. On 13
   September  2012  the  Supreme  Court  of  the Komi Republic upheld the
   judgment.  The  applicant  did  not  apply for further review of those
   court decisions.

   Complaints:   The   applicant   alleges   that  the  stopping  of  the
   demonstration  and the deprivation of his liberty violated Articles 10
   and  11  of  the Convention; he also complains that he could obtain no
   compensation.

   (b)  On  24 February 2012 the applicant staged a solo demonstration in
   Stefanovskaya  Square  in  Syktyvkar. On 5 May 2012 the justice of the
   peace  convicted him under Article 20.2 of the CAO because he had been
   standing  less  than  150  metres  from  a court building, whereas the
   Public  Assemblies  Act  prohibited  public  events  in  the immediate
   vicinity  of  court buildings. The applicant was ordered to pay a fine
   of  RUB  1,000.  On  6  June  2012 the Syktyvkar Town Court upheld the
   judgment.  The applicant did not apply for supervisory review of those
   court decisions.

   Complaint:  The  applicant complains of a violation of Articles 10 and
   11 of the Convention.

   (c)  In  March  2004  the  authorities instituted criminal proceedings
   against  K. and B., who were accused of causing bodily injuries to the
   applicant.  In  November  2010  the  case  was discontinued due to the
   expiry of the time-limit for prosecution.

   The  applicant  also  sought the institution of administrative offence
   proceedings in relation to a traffic accident. An inquiry conducted in
   September 2005 concluded that the relevant file had been lost.

   The  applicant  sought  RUB  25,000  in  compensation  in  respect  of
   non-pecuniary  damage  on  account  of  the  length  of  the  criminal
   investigation  and  RUB  5,000  on account of the loss of the file. On
   27 January 2011 the Syktyvkar Town Court awarded him RUB 5,000 and RUB
   2,000  respectively.^  On  11 April 2011 the Supreme Court of the Komi
   Republic upheld the judgment.

   Complaints: The applicant complains, in substance, about the length of
   the proceedings and the derisory amount of compensation he received.

    8. Application  no. 80153/12 was lodged on 10 November 2012 by Viktor
       Mikhaylovich  SAVCHENKO, who was born on 18 October 1967 and lives
       in the village of Platonovo-Pevrovka in the Rostov region.

   On  23  June  2011,  when  Mr Putin was on his visit to the village of
   Peshkovo,  the  applicant  staged  a  demonstration,  standing at some
   distance from a road close to the village and holding a banner reading
   "Mr Putin!  In  the Rostov region they disregard your Decree on social
   assistance   to  families.  The  Russian  Government  disregard  their
   obligations to issue housing certificates!"

   According to the applicant, police officers approached him and ordered
   him  to go to another place where journalists were filming. He arrived
   there  and  displayed his banner. He was approached by people in plain
   clothes who ordered that he be taken to the police station. The police
   complied. After some three hours there, he was free to leave.

   The  applicant  was  accused of disorderly behaviour on account of his
   use  of  coarse language in a public place on 23 June 2011. On 24 June
   2011  the senior police officer found him guilty under Article 20.1 of
   the  CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 500 on him. On 21 December 2011 the
   Azov  Town  Court  quashed  the  conviction  because the senior police
   officer   had  not  heard  evidence  from  the  applicant.  The  court
   discontinued  the  case  owing  to  the  expiry  of the time-limit for
   prosecution.  On  7 February 2012 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the
   judgment.

   The applicant brought civil proceedings challenging the actions of the
   police in respect of him. On 4 April 2012 the Town Court dismissed his
   claims.  On  14  June 2012 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. The
   applicant did not apply for further review of those court decisions.

   Complaints:  The  applicant alleges that the circumstances of the case
   disclosed violations of Articles 5, 10 and 11 of the Convention.

    9. Application no.   5790/13 was   lodg  ed on 3 0 N ovember 2012 by 
       Aleksandr  Mikhaylovich  KIRPICHENKO, who was born on 18 July 1984
       and  lives  in  Astrakhan.  He is represented by Konstantin Ilyich
       TEREKHOV.

   On  3  July  2012  the  applicant staged a solo demonstration at a bus
   stop.  He  was holding a banner reading "The Kremlin is not for sale -
   it  is  a  piece  of  architecture!".  After several minutes some five
   passers-by  stopped and looked at him. The applicant was then arrested
   and  accused of holding a public assembly without giving prior notice.
   On  20  July 2012 the justice of the peace convicted him under Article
   20.2 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000^ on him. On 21 August
   2012  the  Kirovskiy  District Court of Astrakhan upheld the judgment.
   The  applicant  did  not  apply  for supervisory review of those court
   decisions.

   Complaints:  The  applicant  alleges  a violation of Article 11 of the
   Convention, arguing that it was only natural that a solo demonstration
   was  capable  of attracting the attention of passers-by and that there
   were no compelling reasons to stop it or to arrest him.

   10.  Application  no. 23944/13  was lodged on 25 February 2013 by Nina
   Tagirovna BELYAYEVA, who was born on 9 June 1956 and lives in Moscow.

   (a)  The  applicant was dismissed from her job in a public hospital in
   Moscow.   At  7.30  on  4  July  2011  the  applicant  staged  a  solo
   demonstration  in  front of the hospital. At or around 10 a.m. she was
   approached  by  police  officers  and  paramedics,  who  took her to a
   psychiatric hospital. The hospital staff considered that there were no
   compelling  reasons  to  proceed  with  an  involuntary admission. The
   applicant was thus allowed to leave the hospital at 6 p.m.

   The  applicant sued the police station, the paramedics' office and the
   State  for  unlawful  deprivation  of liberty. On 22 November 2012 the
   Simonovskiy  District  Court  of  Moscow  dismissed  her claims. On 14
   December 2012 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment.

   The  applicant also sued the psychiatric hospital. On 14 February 2013
   the  Nagatinskiy  District  Court  of  Moscow dismissed her claims. On
   18 April  2013  the  City Court upheld the judgment. The applicant did
   not apply for further review of those court decisions.

   Complaints: The applicant complains that the circumstances of the case
   disclosed  violations of Articles 5 and 10 of the Convention, and that
   she could obtain no compensation.

   (b)  On  3  April  2013  the  applicant  was sticking up flyers on the
   building  of the Moscow City Court and on the fences. On 16 April 2013
   the  justice  of the peace convicted her of disobeying an order by the
   court  bailiff  to  stop breaching internal court rules by sticking up
   flyers  containing  unspecified "coarse language" (Article 17.3 of the
   CAO).  The  applicant  was  given  a  fine of RUB 1,000. She appealed,
   arguing  that  she had stuck the flyers up outside the court premises,
   that  she  had not used coarse language and that the court had omitted
   to specify the internal court rules which she had violated and whether
   the  bailiffs were competent to act in relation to any such breach. On
   10   June  2013  the  Preobrazhenskiy  District  Court  dismissed  the
   applicant's  appeal  in  a summary manner. The applicant did not apply
   for further review of those court decisions.

   In  the  meantime,  on 23 April 2013 the applicant was convicted under
   Article  20.1  of  the  CAO  for sticking up flyers. She was fined RUB
   2,500. She appealed, contending that the court had not established any
   motive  for  the  alleged  disorderly behaviour, had not specified any
   "coarse  language" and had not examined, in any event, the contents of
   the  flyers.  On  24 May  2013 the City Court upheld the judgment. The
   applicant  did  not  apply  for  supervisory  review  of  those  court
   decisions.

   Complaints: The applicant complains that the circumstances of the case
   disclosed a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.

   11.  Application  no. 35000/13  was  lodged  on  20 May 2013 by Filipp
   Igorevich  TSUKANOV,  who  was  born  on 19 December 1984 and lives in
   Moscow. He is represented by Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV.

   The  State  Duma  scheduled  for  December 2012 the examination of the
   draft  law  imposing  a  ban  on  the  adoption of Russian children by
   nationals  of  the  United  States of America. On 17 December 2012 the
   next  (apparently,  the  last)  reading  was scheduled for 19 December
   2012.  According  to  the  applicant, he read on various online social
   networks  that many people intended to stage solo demonstrations on 19
   December  2012 in front of the Duma to express their opposition to the
   draft  law.  He decided to hold his own solo demonstration since there
   was  no  longer time to respect the minimum statutory three-day notice
   period for any public assembly.

   At  or  around  9 a.m. the applicant started his solo demonstration at
   some distance from the other demonstrators. Some minutes later, he was
   arrested  by  the  police. He was accused of participating in a public
   assembly without giving prior notice, in breach of Article 20.2 of the
   CAO.

   Since January 2013 Moscow city law no. 10 of 4 April 2007 has included
   a  requirement that solo demonstrators keep a distance of fifty metres
   from each other.

   Also  since  1  January  2013  certain  administrative  offence cases,
   including those under Article 20.2 of the CAO, have had to be examined
   by  district  courts  at  first  instance. On an unspecified date, the
   administrative  offence  case  against  the applicant was accepted for
   examination by a justice of the peace.

   On 6 February 2013 the justice of the peace held a hearing and ordered
   that  the police officer who had arrested the applicant give evidence.
   Having heard the officer and the applicant, the judge found the latter
   guilty  under Article 20.2 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000
   (EUR  500)  on  him.  On  11 March 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of
   Moscow   upheld   the  judgment.  The  applicant  did  not  apply  for
   supervisory review of those court decisions.

   Complaints:  The  applicant  argues under Article 11 of the Convention
   that  he  was  arrested  and prosecuted for a solo demonstration; that
   even  presuming  that  he  had participated in a public assembly, such
   assembly  was  justified  as an immediate and peaceful response to the
   imminent adoption of a controversial draft law; and that his taking to
   the  police  station  and prosecution on the sole ground of failing to
   observe   the   notice   requirement  constituted  a  disproportionate
   interference  with  his freedom of assembly. The applicant also argues
   under  Article  6  of  the  Convention  that  due  to  the  lack  of a
   prosecuting  party,  the  first-instance  court  took  on  the role of
   prosecution   and  collected  incriminating  evidence,  including  the
   calling  of  witnesses.  The  applicant also argues that the courts at
   both  levels  of  jurisdiction  were  not "established by law" because
   after  1  January  2013  justices  of the peace had no jurisdiction in
   cases  relating  to  Article 20.2 of the CAO; district courts could no
   longer act as courts of appeal in such cases.

   12.  Application  no. 35010/13  was  lodged  on  20 May 2013  by Artem
   Aleksandrovich  TORCHINSKIY, who was born on 28 June 1979 and lives in
   Moscow. He is represented by Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV.

   The  circumstances  of  the  present  case  are similar to those of Mr
   Tsukanov's case (see application no. 35000/13 above).

   On  an  unspecified  date, the administrative offence case against the
   applicant  was  accepted for examination by a justice of the peace. On
   15  January  2013 the judge convicted the applicant under Article 20.2
   of  the  CAO  and  imposed a fine of RUB 20,000 on him. On 13 February
   2013  the  Tverskoy  District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment. The
   applicant  did  not  apply  for  supervisory  review  of  those  court
   decisions.

   Complaints:  The  applicant  argues under Article 11 of the Convention
   that  he  was  arrested  and prosecuted for a solo demonstration; that
   even  assuming  that  he  did  participate  in a public assembly, such
   assembly  was  justified  as an immediate and peaceful response to the
   imminent  adoption  of a controversial draft law. The applicant argues
   under  Article  6  of  the  Convention  that  due  to  the  lack  of a
   prosecuting   party,   the  first-instance  court  took  the  role  of
   prosecution   and  collected  incriminating  evidence,  including  the
   calling  of  witnesses.  The  applicant also argues that the courts at
   both  levels of jurisdiction were not "established by law", that as of
   1 January  2013  justices  of  the  peace had no jurisdiction in cases
   relating to Article 20.2 of the CAO, and that district courts could no
   longer act as courts of appeal in such cases.

   13.  Application  no. 35015/13  was  lodged  on 20 May 2013 by Valeriy
   Leonidovich  ROMAKHIN,  who  was  born  on  30  July 1965 and lives in
   Astrakhan. He is represented by Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV.

   At   1.30  p.m.  on  10  November  2012  the  applicant  held  a  solo
   demonstration  in  front  of  the Maritime University in Astrakhan, to
   express  his  disagreement  with  the  recent  decision  to  close the
   university.  Some  fifty  metres  away,  across the road, Mr A. held a
   demonstration,  making  similar  claims.  Shortly  after  starting his
   demonstration,  the applicant was arrested by the police and was taken
   to the police station. He was allowed to leave after several hours.

   In  the  Astrakhan  Region, law no. 80/2012-FZ of 27 November 2012 set
   the minimum distance between solo demonstrators at no less than twenty
   metres.

   On  6 December 2012 a justice of the peace convicted him under Article
   20.2 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000 on him. On 5 February
   2013  the  Sovetskiy  District Court of Astrakhan upheld the judgment.
   The  courts  considered that the applicant and Mr A. had held a public
   assembly  together  (the  common  logistical  organisation, timing and
   claims  disclosing  a  common  goal),  which by law required the local
   authorities  to  be notified in advance. The courts concluded that the
   offence  impinged  upon  public  order  and public security, "having a
   significant   adverse  impact  on  protected  public  relations".  The
   applicant  did  not  apply  for  supervisory  review  of  those  court
   decisions.

   Complaints:  The  applicant alleges that the circumstances of the case
   disclosed  a  violation  of  Article 11 of the Convention, in that his
   arrest  and  prosecution  on the sole ground of failing to respect the
   notification requirement were disproportionate.

   14.  Application  no. 37038/13  was  lodged  on  20 May 2013  by  Igor
   Aleksandrovich TARASOV, who was born on 16 September 1980 and lives in
   Moscow. He is represented by Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV.

   The  circumstances  of  the  present  case  are similar to those of Mr
   Tsukanov's case (see application no. 35000/13 above).

   On  an  unspecified  date, the administrative offence case against the
   applicant  was  accepted for examination by a justice of the peace. On
   15  January  2013 the judge convicted the applicant under Article 20.2
   of  the  CAO  and  imposed a fine of RUB 20,000 on him. On 20 February
   2013  the  Tverskoy  District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment. The
   applicant did not apply for supervisory review of those decisions.

   Complaints:  The  applicant  argues under Article 11 of the Convention
   that he was arrested and prosecuted for a solo demonstration, and that
   even  assuming  that  he  did  participate  in a public assembly, such
   assembly  was  justified  as an immediate and peaceful response to the
   imminent  adoption  of a controversial draft law. The applicant argues
   under  Article  6  of the Convention that the courts at both levels of
   jurisdiction were not "established by law".

   15.  Application  no. 42294/13  was  lodged  on  2 June 2013 by Yelena
   Sergeyevna  BELAN,  who  was  born  on  6  August  1961  and  lives in
   Rostov-on-Don.

   On  3  September  2012  Ms  Sviderskaya  and  Ms T. notified the local
   authority  of their intention to hold a public assembly from 4 p.m. to
   5  p.m. on 15 September 2012 in Sovetov Square in Rostov-on-Don. Later
   on,  they  and  the  other  organisers  decided not to hold the public
   assembly (see application no. 42585/13 below).

   The  applicant  submits  that  on  15 September 2012 she staged a solo
   demonstration  instead. Shortly after she had started, police officers
   ordered  her  to  stop  the  demonstration and issued a formal warning
   against  a  violation of public order. According to the applicant, one
   of the officers asked a passer-by, Mr Z., to hold her banner while she
   was  signing  the warning. The events were recorded on video. Both the
   applicant  and  Mr  Z.  were  then  arrested  and  taken to the police
   station.  No arrest record was compiled. The applicant remained in the
   police station for some three hours and was then allowed to leave.

   On  an  unspecified date, the case against the applicant was submitted
   to  the  justice  of  the  peace.  She was accused of holding a public
   assembly without giving prior notification to the local authority.

   On  25  September  2012 the judge declared two photographs and a video
   recording  (apparently  showing  the  events  of  15  September  2012)
   inadmissible in evidence owing to "the uncertainty as to who had taken
   the  photographs  and  made the recording, and where and when". At the
   applicant's  request, the judge ordered that the street camera footage
   be  obtained.  On  7 October 2012 the city police department confirmed
   that  the  recording  existed  and  invited  the  judge  to  bring  an
   electronic  storage  device onto which it could be copied. However, on
   18 October  2012 the on-duty police officer informed the judge that on
   15 September  2012  the recording/archiving system and the cameras had
   been out of order.

   The  justice  of  the  peace  heard  officer A., who stated that on 15
   September 2012 the police had taken photographs of what appeared to be
   a  public  assembly  of  at  least four people displaying banners. The
   judge  asked  to  see  those photographs. The police department denied
   that any photographs had been taken.

   The judge also saw the (apparently edited) video recording made by the
   police  on  15 September  2012. It showed the applicant with a banner,
   the  applicant  reading  a  piece of paper and a man (Mr Z.) holding a
   banner above his head.

   On  13  November 2012 the justice of the peace convicted the applicant
   under Article 20.2 of the CAO and imposed a fine of RUB 20,000 on him.
   The  applicant  appealed,  arguing  that  the  Public  Assemblies  Act
   conferred  on  the  regional  authorities  the  power to determine the
   minimum   distance   between   solo   demonstrations;  since  no  such
   specification  had been issued in the Rostov region there was no legal
   criterion  for  not  treating  people  standing  at  some, even short,
   distance from each other as solo demonstrators or, by implication, for
   treating  them  as a public assembly. On 3 December 2012 the Leninskiy
   District  Court  of  Rostov-on-Don  upheld  the judgment. The District
   Court  established that several people, including Z., had been present
   in  the  same place on 15 September 2012 and had been holding banners,
   that  the  public nature of the situation and the number of people who
   had  been  present  sufficed to disclose a "public assembly", that the
   applicant  was  the  event organiser and that no prior notification of
   the said assembly had been given by her.

   The  applicant lodged a criminal complaint, seeking the institution of
   criminal proceedings against the police officers (Articles 149 and 286
   of  the  Criminal  Code concerning impediment to a public assembly and
   abuse  of  power  respectively).  By  a  letter  of 9 January 2013 the
   Regional Prosecutor's Office dismissed her complaint.

   The  justice  of  the  peace authorised that the fine be paid in three
   instalments.

   On 6 March and 20 May 2013 the Deputy President of the Rostov Regional
   Court  upheld  the  decisions  of 13 November and 3 December 2012. The
   applicant  did  not  apply for further review of those court decisions
   before the Supreme Court of Russia.

   Complaints:  The  applicant  complains  under  Articles 3 and 5 of the
   Convention  that  she  was  unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of her
   liberty,  that  the  public authorities stopped her solo demonstration
   and  imposed  a  heavy  fine  in  breach  of Articles 10 and 11 of the
   Convention, and that the domestic law at the time did not specify that
   any  specific  distance  had  to  be maintained between unrelated solo
   demonstrators.  She also alleges that the requirements of fairness and
   equality of arms were not respected in the domestic court proceedings.

   16.  Application  no. 42585/13  was  lodged on 4 June 2013 by Svetlana
   Olegovna  SVIDERSKAYA,  who  was  born  on  2 April 1949  and lives in
   Rostov-on-Don.

   On  3  September  2012  the  applicant  and  Ms  T. notified the local
   authority  of their intention to hold a public assembly from 4 p.m. to
   5  p.m.  on 15 September 2012 in Sovetov Square in Rostov-on-Don. On 5
   September  2012  the  authority  suggested that, instead, the event be
   held  from  9.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in the square in front of the City
   Library.  On  6  September  2012  the  event  organisers dismissed the
   suggestion  as  unsuitable  for  the purposes of their assembly. On 12
   September  2012 the authority insisted on their suggestion and refused
   to  make  another one. Ms T. withdrew her request to hold the proposed
   event.

   The  applicant claims that on 15 September 2012 from 1.30 p.m. to 2.45
   p.m.  she  staged  a solo demonstration instead. On her way back home,
   she  saw  a  man  holding a banner, whom she approached in order to be
   able  to read the banner, which read "I will not give up my freedom of
   choice,  which  is granted by God and the Constitution!". Immediately,
   she  was  approached  by a police officer, who ordered her to show her
   own  banner.  She  refused. The applicant was then taken to the police
   station.  After some five hours at the police station, she was allowed
   to leave.

   The  applicant argued before the justice of the peace that at the time
   of  her  arrest she had not been taking part in any public assembly or
   holding  a  solo demonstration. On 9 November 2012 the judge convicted
   her  under  Article  20.2 of the CAO for holding (проведение) a public
   assembly  without  giving  prior  notice to the authorities. The court
   concluded  that in the circumstances of the case it was appropriate to
   impose  the minimum statutory fine of RUB 20,000 on her. On 6 December
   2012   the  Leninskiy  District  Court  of  Rostov-on-Don  upheld  the
   judgment.  The  court  considered  that  the  justice of the peace had
   imposed  the  minimum  fine  on  account  of  the applicant's personal
   circumstances.  In  an  ancillary  procedure,  on 26 December 2012 the
   justice  of  the  peace  allowed  payment of the fine in three monthly
   instalments (which is the best possible solution under Article 31.5 of
   the  CAO),  namely, two instalments of RUB 7,000 and one of RUB 6,000.
   The  court took note of the fact that the applicant received a monthly
   old-age pension of RUB 5,561. It was not specified whether she had any
   other income.

   The  applicant lodged a criminal complaint, seeking the institution of
   criminal proceedings against the police officers (Articles 149 and 286
   of  the  Criminal  Code).  By  a letter of 9 January 2013 the Regional
   Prosecutor's Office dismissed her complaint.

   In  the  meantime,  the  applicant  sought  supervisory  review of the
   decisions of 9 November and 6 December 2012, arguing, inter alia, that
   she  was in a precarious situation. She sought a reduction of the fine
   below  the  statutory  minimum,  in accordance with the constitutional
   ruling of 14 February 2013 (see "Relevant domestic law and practice").
   On 6 March and 29 May 2013 the deputy President of the Rostov Regional
   Court  confirmed  the  judgments  and the amount of the fine as "being
   within the scope of the statutory requirement". On 10 January 2014 the
   Supreme Court of Russia also confirmed the judgments.

   Complaints: The applicant complains that the amount of the fine was in
   breach  of  Article  3 of the Convention; under its Article 5 that she
   was  unlawfully  and  arbitrarily  deprived  of her liberty; and under
   Articles  10  and 11 about the deprivation of liberty on that date and
   imposition of a disproportionately high fine.

   17.  Application  no. 61443/13  was lodged on 30 August 2013 by Eduard
   Anatolyevich  NIKOLAYEV,  who was born on 21 January 1971 and lives in
   Rostov-on-Don.

   In early 2012 Ms B., headmistress of a public school and chairwoman of
   the local electoral committee, removed the applicant from his position
   as committee member.

   Around  8 a.m. on 1 September 2012 the applicant stood in front of the
   school  distributing  leaflets,  expressing his negative opinion about
   B.'s  professional and personal qualities. The school staff called the
   police.  According to the applicant, he complied with the police order
   to  show  his  identity  documents.  At  some  point, while the police
   officers  were  carrying  out  an  identity  check  through the police
   database,  he decided to leave. However, on reflection, he changed his
   mind  and  came  back. According to the applicant, officer T. then put
   him in a painful armlock and handcuffed him, without any valid reason.

   The  applicant  was  taken to the police station where he remained for
   some  two  hours.  On  the  same  day, the applicant was examined by a
   doctor  and received treatment for pain in the shoulder and bruises on
   his   wrists.   The  applicant  sought  the  institution  of  criminal
   proceedings against the officer. Those proceedings are pending.

   The applicant was accused of disorderly behaviour (Article 20.1 of the
   CAO). The outcome of this case is unclear.

   In  November  2012  the  applicant brought proceedings challenging the
   following  actions on the part of the public authorities and officials
   (Article 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure): the police order to stop
   the demonstration and distribution of leaflets, in breach of his right
   to  impart  information;  their  recourse to physical force and use of
   handcuffs; his taking to the police station; and his prosecution under
   the CAO.

   By  a  judgment  of  5 April 2013 the Voroshilovskiy District Court of
   Rostov-on-Don dismissed his claims. The court accepted the applicant's
   submission  that he had staged a static demonstration (пикетирование),
   which consisted of distribution of leaflets. The court considered that
   the  applicant had attempted to flee during the identity check and had
   been  arrested (задержан), and that the use of force and handcuffs had
   complied  with  the  relevant  regulations.  Having summarised several
   testimonies, the court concluded as follows:

   "The  police  officers  intended to put an end to the breach of public
   order,  consisting of [showing] disrespect to society. This disrespect
   was  accompanied  by  the use of coarse language in a public place [by
   the applicant], imposing [himself] on citizens and refusing to obey an
   order  by a public official ... The police officers acted within their
   powers  and did not violate the applicant's rights. Nor did they cause
   any impediment to the exercise of any such rights ..."

   The  applicant  appealed,  contending that the finding corresponded in
   substance to the pending charge against him and the wording of Article
   20.1  of the CAO, and thus violated his right to be presumed innocent.
   Furthermore,  in  the  applicant's  submission,  the  court  failed to
   specify  the  factual details concerning his showing of "disrespect to
   society",  the contents and the alleged victims of the coarse language
   allegedly  used  by  him,  the details of his "imposing on others" and
   "the order by a public official" and the lawfulness of any such order.

   On  17  June  2013  the  Rostov  Regional  Court dismissed the appeal,
   endorsing  the reasoning of the first-instance judgment. The applicant
   did not apply for further review of those court decisions.

   Complaints:  The  applicant  complains  that  the  use  of  force  and
   handcuffs  against  him violated Article 3 of the Convention; that his
   arrest  was  unlawful  and  arbitrary,  in  breach of Article 5 of the
   Convention;  under  its  Article  6 that the civil courts were biased,
   unfair  and  violated  the  right  to  presumption of innocence; under
   Articles  10  and  11  of  the  Convention  about  the stopping of his
   leafleting,  his  taking  to  the  police  station, prosecution for an
   administrative  offence  and  the dismissal of his claims by the civil
   courts.

   II.  RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE

   A.  Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression

   The Constitution of Russia guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful
   assembly  and  the right to hold meetings, demonstrations, marches and
   pickets  (Article 31);  the freedom of thought and expression, as well
   as   the   freedom  to  freely  seek,  receive,  transfer  and  spread
   information by any legal means (Article 29).

   Article  149  of  the Criminal Code penalises unlawful impediment by a
   public  official  to a public meeting, demonstration, march or picket,
   or to anyone's participation in it.

   Article  286  of  the Criminal Code penalises actions on the part of a
   public official which clearly fall outside the scope of his competence
   and constitute a serious violation of a person's rights or interests.

   Procedure for the conduct of public events

   (a)  General provisions

   Federal  Law  no. FZ-54  of  19  June  2004  on  Gatherings, Meetings,
   Demonstrations,  Marches  and  Pickets  ("the Public Assemblies Act"),
   defines  a  public  event (публичное мероприятие) as an open, peaceful
   event  accessible  to  all,  organised  on  the  initiative of Russian
   citizens,  political  parties,  other public associations or religious
   associations.  The  aims  of  a public event are to express or develop
   opinions  freely  and to voice demands on issues related to political,
   economic,  social  or  cultural life in the country, as well as issues
   related to foreign policy (section 2(1)).

   A  public  event may be held in any convenient location, provided that
   it  does  not create a risk of building collapse or any other risks to
   the  safety of the participants. The access of participants to certain
   locations  may  be banned or restricted in the circumstances specified
   by  federal  laws  (section 8(1)).  Public  events  in  the  immediate
   vicinity of a court are prohibited (section 8(2)).

   No  earlier  than  fifteen  days and no later than ten days before the
   intended  public  assembly,  its  organisers must notify the competent
   regional  or  municipal  authorities  of  the  date, time, location or
   itinerary  and purposes of the assembly, its type, the expected number
   of  participants,  and  the names of the organisers. A notification in
   respect  of  a  picket  involving  several people must be submitted no
   later than three days before the intended picket or, if the end of the
   time-limit  falls  on a Sunday or a public holiday, no later than four
   days before the intended picket (section 7(1) and (3)). A notification
   of a public assembly is a document by which the competent authority is
   informed,  in  accordance  with the procedure established by this Act,
   that  an  assembly  will  be held, so that the competent authority may
   take  measures  to  ensure safety and public order during the assembly
   (section 2 (7)).

   Upon  receipt of such notification the competent regional or municipal
   authorities must, inter alia:

   1)  confirm receipt of the notification;

   2)  provide  the  organisers  of  the  assembly,  within three days of
   receiving  the  notification  (or,  in  the case of a picket involving
   several  people,  if the notification is submitted less than five days
   before   the   intended   picket,  on  the  day  of  receipt  of  such
   notification),  with  reasoned  suggestions  for changing the location
   and/or  time  of  the  assembly, or for amending the purposes, type or
   other  arrangements  if they are incompatible with the requirements of
   this Act;

   3)  ensure,  in  cooperation  with  the organisers of the assembly and
   representatives   of   the  competent  law-enforcement  agencies,  the
   protection  of  public  order  and  citizens' security, as well as the
   administration of emergency medical aid if necessary (section 12(1)).

   The  competent  regional  or municipal authority may refuse to allow a
   public  assembly only if the person who has submitted the notification
   is  not  entitled to organise a public assembly or if it is prohibited
   to  hold  public  assemblies  at the location chosen by the organisers
   (section 12(3)).

   No  later  than  three  days  before the intended date of the assembly
   (this  time-limit  does not apply to pickets involving one person) the
   organisers of a public assembly must inform the authorities in writing
   whether  or  not they accept the authorities' suggestions for changing
   the location and/or time of the assembly (section 5(4)(2)).

   (b)  Provisions on solo static demonstrations (solo "pickets")

   The  Public  Assemblies  Act  defines  a  "picket" as a form of public
   expression  of  opinion  that  does not involve movement or the use of
   loudspeaker  equipment,  where  one  or  more  citizens with placards,
   banners  and other means of visual expression assemble near the target
   object of the picket (section 2(6)).

   No  notification  is  required for gatherings or pickets involving one
   person  (section  7(1)  and (3)). On 8 June 2012 the Public Assemblies
   Act  was  amended.  Under new subsection 1.1 in section 7 the distance
   between  solo  demonstrators  should  be  determined  by  the regional
   statutes  but  should not exceed fifty metres. A court is empowered to
   declare that several solo demonstrations, taken together, constitute a
   single  public  event  if  they  share  the same goal and organisation
   (ibid.).

   In  its  ruling no. 4-P of 14 February 2013 the Russian Constitutional
   Court  noted that the absence of the notification requirement for solo
   demonstrations  excluded  any  State  interference  with  such  public
   events,  which  could  be  held  at  any venue and at any time, unless
   otherwise  provided  by  the  law. However, to avoid public assemblies
   being  disguised  as  solo  demonstrations, the legislator imposed the
   requirement   that   a   minimum   distance   be   kept  between  solo
   demonstrators.  This  distance  was  to be specified by each region of
   Russia  but  could not exceed fifty metres. This was aimed at ensuring
   compliance  with  the notification requirement for assemblies. A court
   may  conclude  that a given situation discloses a public assembly when
   it   is   sufficiently   clear   that   several,   prima  facie  solo,
   demonstrations have the same goal and organisation; that they are held
   simultaneously  and  in  close  proximity; that their participants use
   identical  or  similar visual support materials and put forward common
   claims.  The  attention  that  a solo demonstration naturally attracts
   does  not  deprive it of its solo nature. A court should establish the
   existence  of  a  common  goal and organisation and should exclude the
   possibility  that  several  solo demonstrations have simply coincided.
   The  burden  of  proof  rests with the authority or the official which
   pursues  civil, criminal or administrative offence proceedings against
   the person concerned.

   As  regards  the  regional  statutes  on  the  distance  between  solo
   demonstrators:

   In  the  Rostov  region,  regional law no. 146-3C of 27 September 2004
   complements  the federal regulations on public gatherings. In December
   2012  this  law  was amended to provide that the distance between solo
   demonstrations  should  be no less than fifty metres (section 2 of the
   law).

   A  similar  law  in  Moscow  (law no. 10 of 4 April 2007) has provided
   since   January   2013  for  the  same  distance  and  specifies  that
   simultaneous  demonstrations  should be treated as solo demonstrations
   provided that they do not have a common goal and organisation (section
   2.3 of the law).

   In the Tatarstan Republic, law no. 91-ZRT of 25 December 2012 provides
   that  the  relevant  distance  should  be  no  less than thirty metres
   (section 8 of the law).

   In  the  Sverdlovsk Region, law no. 102-FZ of 7 December 2012 provides
   that  the  distance should attain or exceed forty metres (section 5 of
   the law).

   In  the  Astrakhan Region, law no. 80/2012-FZ of 27 November 2012 sets
   the  relevant distance at no less than twenty metres (section 4 of the
   law).

   B.  Liability for violation of the rules on public assemblies

   Before June 2012 a breach of the established procedure for the conduct
   of  public  assemblies  was  punishable  by  a  fine of 1,000 to 2,000
   Russian roubles (RUB) for the organisers of the assembly, and from RUB
   500  to  1,000  for the participants (Article 20.2 S:S: 1 and 2 of the
   CAO).

   On  8  June  2012  that  Article was amended. The amended Article 20.2
   provides that a breach of the established procedure for the conduct of
   public assemblies committed by an organiser is punishable by a fine of
   RUB 10,000  to  20,000  or  up to forty hours of community work if the
   organiser  is  a natural person, or by a fine of RUB 50,000 to 100,000
   if  the  organiser is a legal person. The holding of a public assembly
   without  notification  is punishable by a fine of RUB 20,000 to 30,000
   or  up  to fifty hours of community work if the organiser is a natural
   person,  or  by  a fine of RUB 70,000 to 200,000 if the organiser is a
   legal  person.  A  breach by an organiser of the established procedure
   for  the  conduct of public assemblies which causes the obstruction of
   pedestrian  or  road  traffic  or leads to the maximum capacity of the
   venue  being  exceeded is punishable by a fine of RUB 30,000 to 50,000
   or  up  to  a  hundred  hours  of community work if the organiser is a
   natural  person,  or  by  a  fine  of  RUB 250,000  to  500,000 if the
   organiser  is  a  legal  person.  A  breach  by  an  organiser  of the
   established  procedure  for  the  conduct  of  public assemblies which
   causes  damage  to someone's health or property, provided that it does
   not  amount  to  a  criminal  offence,  is  punishable  by  a  fine of
   RUB 100,000 to 300,000 or up to two hundred hours of community work if
   the  organiser  is  a  natural  person, or by a fine of RUB 400,000 to
   1,000,000  if  the  organiser  is  a  legal  person.  A  breach of the
   established  procedure  for the conduct of public assemblies committed
   by a participant is punishable by a fine of RUB 10,000 to 20,000 or up
   to  forty  hours  of  community work. A breach by a participant of the
   established  procedure  for  the  conduct  of  public assemblies which
   causes  damage  to someone's health or property, provided that it does
   not  amount  to  a  criminal  offence,  is  punishable  by  a  fine of
   RUB 150,000 to 300,000 or up to two hundred hours of community work.

   In  its  ruling  no.  4-P of 14 February 2013 the Constitutional Court
   declared  unconstitutional  the minimum statutory fines (in particular
   under Article 20.2 of the CAO) in so far as the relevant provisions of
   the  CAO  did  not  allow imposition of a fine below the minimum fine,
   which  would correspond to a proper consideration of the nature of the
   offence,  the  financial  situation  of  the  person  or other factors
   relating   to   the  individualisation  of  the  penalty  and  to  the
   requirements of proportionality and fairness. The Constitutional Court
   required  the legislator to amend the CAO accordingly. Until that time
   the  courts  are  instructed to consider the possibility of imposing a
   fine below the minimum statutory fine.

   Refusal  to  obey  a  lawful  order  or request of a police officer is
   punishable  by  an  administrative  fine  of RUB 500 to 1,000 or up to
   fifteen days' administrative detention (Article 19.3 of the Code).

   Non-payment  of  an  administrative  fine is punishable with a doubled
   fine or up to fifteen days' administrative detention (Article 20.25 of
   the Code).

   C.  Fairness   and   procedural   guarantees   in   cases   concerning
   administrative offences

   1.  Equality of arms and adversarial proceedings under the CAO

   Article  1.5 of the CAO provides for the presumption of innocence. The
   official  or  court dealing with an administrative offence case should
   establish  whether  the person concerned is guilty or innocent (ruling
   no. 5 of 24 March 2005 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia).

   The Constitutional Court stated that Articles 118 S: 2 and 123 S: 3 of
   the  Russian  Constitution provided that the principles of equality of
   arms  and  adversarial  procedure  should  apply in court proceedings,
   including  under  the CAO. While those constitutional guarantees apply
   in  cases  examined  (directly)  by courts, they do not apply in cases
   examined  by non-judicial authorities or officials (decision no. 630-O
   of  23  April  2013 by the Russian Constitutional Court). However, the
   person  concerned  may  seek  judicial review of their decisions; such
   review proceedings should provide for equality of arms and adversarial
   procedure (ibid.).

   Article  25.1  S: 4 of the CAO provides that a person prosecuted under
   the  CAO  is  entitled  to  study  the  case-file  materials,  to make
   submissions,  to adduce evidence, to lodge motions and challenges, and
   to  have  legal  assistance.  The Constitutional Court considered that
   those guarantees enabled the person concerned to refute, in the course
   of  court  proceedings,  the  information  contained in case file, for
   instance   in   the   offence  record  (протокол  об  административном
   правонарушении),  thereby  exercising  his  or  her  right to judicial
   protection  based  on the principle of adversarial procedure (decision
   no. 925-O-O of 17 June 2010).

   The  Constitutional  Court  held,  in relation to the Code of Criminal
   Procedure,  that  requiring  or  allowing  a  court  to  take over the
   functions  normally attributed to a prosecuting authority contradicted
   Article  123 of the Constitution and impeded independent and impartial
   administration  of  justice  (see,  among others, ruling no. 16-P of 2
   July 2013).

   Article   30.6   of  the  CAO  provides  for  an  appeal  against  the
   first-instance  judgment.  The appeal court is required to examine the
   existing  and  new  evidence  in  the case file, and to provide a full
   review of the case.

   2.  Relevant provisions of the Code of Commercial Procedure

   In  certain  circumstances,  administrative  offence  cases  should be
   examined  following  the  procedure  set out by the Code of Commercial
   Procedure.

   Articles  8  and  9  of  the  Code  provide  for  equality of arms and
   adversarial procedure.

   Article  65  of  the  Code provides that each party to the proceedings
   should  prove  the  circumstances to which he or she refers as a basis
   for his or her claims.

   Article  205  of  the  Code  requires the authority which compiled the
   administrative  offence  record to prove the related factual and legal
   circumstances  it  is  based  on.  The  person being prosecuted for an
   administrative  offence  does  not  bear  the  burden of proof in this
   respect.

   D.  Escorting  a  person  to  the  police  station,  arrest  and other
   coercive or preventive measures

   Under the old Police Act (Federal Law no. 1036-I of 18 April 1991) the
   police were empowered to carry out administrative arrest.

   Under the current Police Act (Federal Law no. 3-FZ of 7 February 2011)
   the  police  are empowered to check an individual's identity documents
   where there are reasons to suspect the person of a criminal offence or
   if  his  or  her name is on a wanted list, where there is a reason for
   prosecuting  him  or  her for an administrative offence or where there
   are other grounds, prescribed by federal law, for arresting the person
   (section  13  of  the  Act). The police are also empowered to take the
   person  to  the  police  station  in order to decide whether he or she
   should  be  arrested  if it cannot be done on the spot. The police are
   empowered  to  take  fingerprints,  to  take photographs or make video
   recordings of an arrestee suspected of a criminal offence or if it was
   not  possible  to  properly  identify  the  arrestee during the arrest
   (section 13 of the Act).

   In  exceptional  circumstances  relating  to the need for a proper and
   expedient  examination of an administrative case, the person concerned
   may   be   placed   under   administrative   arrest  (административное
   задержание) (Article 27.3 of the CAO). The arrestee should be informed
   of  his  rights and obligations; this notification should be mentioned
   in  the arrest record. The duration of such administrative arrest must
   not  normally  exceed  three hours. Administrative arrest for a longer
   period,  not  exceeding  forty-eight  hours,  is  permissible only for
   persons  subject  to  administrative proceedings concerning an offence
   punishable  by administrative detention or offences involving unlawful
   crossing of the Russian border. This term starts to run as soon as the
   person  has  been  escorted  to  the police station in accordance with
   Article   27.2   of   the   Code  (Article  25.5  of  the  Code).  The
   Constitutional   Court   has   ruled   that  such  arrest  amounts  to
   "deprivation  of  liberty"  as  it is understood by the European Court
   within  the  meaning  of  Article  5  S:1(c) of the Convention (Ruling
   no. 9-P of 16 June 2009).

   The  CAO  also authorises the competent authorities to compel a person
   to follow the competent officer, for instance to a police station, for
   the  purposes  of  compiling  an administrative offence record when it
   cannot  be  done  on the spot (административное доставление) (Articles
   27.1 and 27.2 of the CAO). The Constitutional Court has held that this
   measure  of  compulsion, which amounts to a temporary restriction of a
   person's  freedom  of  movement,  should  be  applied  only when it is
   necessary  and  within  short  timeframes.  Referring to the notion of
   "deprivation  of  liberty"  under  Article  5  of  the Convention, the
   Constitutional  Court has ruled that the relevant criteria relating to
   Article  5  of  the  Convention  are "fully applicable" to the measure
   (Decision no. 149-O-O of 17 January 2012).

                              COMMON QUESTIONS

   1.  (a)  Do the circumstances of each case (for instance, the order to
   stop  the  demonstration,  taking the applicant to the police station,
   prosecution  under  Articles  19.3,  20.1  or  20.2  of  the  Code  of
   Administrative  Offences),  taken separately or cumulatively, disclose
   interference  with the applicants' freedom of expression under Article
   10 S: 1 of the Convention, including the freedom to receive and impart
   information and ideas?

   (b)  Was  this  interference  prescribed  by  law?  At the time of the
   events  and  ensuing  proceedings  in each case (and a fortiori in the
   cases before 2012), did the domestic law and judicial practice allow a
   clear  distinction to be drawn between simultaneous solo "pickets" and
   a  public  assembly such as a group "picket" (for instance, on account
   of  a  certain  distance between demonstrators or the criterion of the
   events  having  "a  common  goal  and  organisation")? If not, was the
   "quality of law" adversely affected?

   (c)  Did the interference pursue a legitimate aim?

   (d)  Was  the  interference  "necessary  in  a democratic society" and
   proportionate  to the legitimate aim pursued? Were the reasons adduced
   by  the national authorities to justify the interference "relevant and
   sufficient"?  Did  the national authorities apply standards which were
   in  conformity  with  the  principles  embodied  in  Article 10 of the
   Convention,  where appropriate, considered in the light of its Article
   11?  Did  the  authorities  base  their  decisions  on  an  acceptable
   assessment  of  the  relevant  facts,  for instance when assessing the
   coarse  language imputed to some of the applicants, the content of the
   leaflets  distributed  by some of them, or the contents and lawfulness
   of the police orders which some of the applicants disobeyed?

   2.  Assuming  that certain applicants did organise or participate in a
   peaceful  public  assembly,  did  the  authorities'  putting an end to
   (their  participation  in)  the  public  assembly,  the  taking of the
   applicants to the police station and, in some cases, their prosecution
   on  the sole ground of failing to observe the notification requirement
   constitute  a  disproportionate  interference  with  their  freedom of
   assembly  under  Article  11  of  the  Convention?  When  finding  the
   applicants  guilty  and  when  imposing  penalties  such  as  fines or
   administrative  detention,  did  the  courts ponder the gravity of the
   offence  and the consequences it entailed, such as serious obstruction
   of traffic, damage to property or similar?

   3.  Were  the  applicants  "deprived of liberty" within the meaning of
   Article  5  of  the Convention (cf. M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, S:S:
   185-95,  ECHR  2013  (extracts),  and Gahramanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.),
   no. 26291/06,  15  October 2013)? Did such deprivation of liberty fall
   within  the scope of one or several subparagraphs of Article 5 S: 1 of
   the Convention?

   If so, was the entire period (complained of) lawful and "in accordance
   with a procedure prescribed by law"? In particular:

   -  Was  it  properly  recorded  as  "escorting  to the police station"
   (административное  доставление)  (Articles  27.1 and 27.2 of the CAO)?
   Was  it necessary for the relevant statutory purpose (the compiling of
   an administrative offence record because this could not be done on the
   spot)  and  reasonable  as to its duration (decision no. 149-O-O of 17
   January 2012 by the Constitutional Court)?

   -  Was it properly recorded as administrative arrest (административное
   задержание)  under  Article  27.3  of  the  CAO?  Were  the  statutory
   requirement  of  "exceptional circumstances" and the statutory purpose
   (the need for a proper and expedient examination of the administrative
   case) (see ruling no. 9-P of 16 June 2009 by the Constitutional Court)
   respected?

   -  Was it properly recorded as "escorting" (i.e. to the police station
   or  other)  under  section  11  of the old Police Act (Federal Law no.
   1036-I  of  18  April  1991)  or  section 13 of the current Police Act
   (Federal  Law  no.  3-FZ  of  7 February 2011)? Was the deprivation of
   liberty  effected  in order to decide whether the applicants should be
   arrested, since such decision could not be taken on the spot?

   Alternatively, do the circumstances of the cases disclose restrictions
   on  the  applicants'  freedom  of  movement, in breach of Article 2 of
   Protocol No. 4?

                     ADDITIONAL CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

   44135/08:

   Did  the  proceedings before the Deputy President of the Supreme Court
   of  the  Tatarstan Republic concern the "determination of the criminal
   charge"  against the applicant? If so, was Article 6 of the Convention
   violated   on   account   of   the   dismissal   of   the  applicant's
   supervisory-review appeal by way of a letter dated 8 July 2008?

   2886/09, 7941/09:

   Regard  being  had to the findings of the domestic courts, was there a
   violation  of  Article  5  S:  5 of the Convention? Alternatively, was
   there a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of
   Protocol No. 4?

   40377/10:

   1.  Assuming  Article  6  of  the  Convention  was  applicable  to the
   proceedings under the CAO:

   -  Was  the  impartiality  requirement  respected  in  this  case,  in
   particular  on account of the absence of any prosecuting authority and
   the  role  of  the  judge  in  these  circumstances  (see,  by  way of
   comparison,  Ozerov  v. Russia, no. 64962/01, S:S: 52-57, 18 May 2010,
   and  Blum  v. Austria, no. 31655/02, S:S: 36-38, 3 February 2005)? Did
   the same situation obtain on appeal? Were the principle of equality of
   arms  and  the  requirement  of  adversarial  procedure applicable and
   actually  respected  in  the  present  case? If yes, how? What was the
   procedural  role of the authority and public official who compiled the
   administrative offence record under the CAO?

   -  Was  the  applicant  afforded  an  adequate  opportunity  to defend
   himself  in person and to receive legal assistance at any stage of the
   proceedings?  Having regard to various relevant factors (for instance,
   the   seriousness  of  the  offence,  the  severity  of  the  possible
   sentences,  the  complexity  of the case and the personal situation of
   the  accused),  did  the  interests  of  justice  require  that  legal
   assistance be provided free of charge? If so, was there a violation of
   Article 6 of the Convention?

   2.  Noting  the  applicant's conviction under Article 20.2 of the CAO,
   does  he  have  standing  to raise a complaint under Article 10 of the
   Convention, as well as its Article 11?

   57569/11:

   1.  Has  the  applicant lost victim status in respect of his complaint
   concerning  his  taking to the police station on 30 July 2010? If not,
   was there a violation of Article 5 S: 1 of the Convention or Article 2
   of Protocol No. 4?

   2.  Was  there  a  violation  of  Article  5  S:  5 of the Convention?
   Alternatively,   was   there  a  violation  of  Article  13  taken  in
   conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4?

   66314/11:

   1.  Does  the  applicant have standing to complain about the length of
   the  proceedings under the CAO and the Code of Criminal Procedure (see
   section  (c)  for  application  no.  66314/11 in "Facts") (cf. Biro v.
   Slovakia (no. 2), no. 57678/00, S:S: 37-45, 27 June 2006)? If yes, has
   he lost victim status in relation to his complaint about the length of
   those  proceedings  (court decisions of 27 January and 11 April 2011)?
   If not, was there a violation of Article 6 S: 1 of the Convention?

   2.  Was  there  a  violation  of Article 5 S: 5 of the Convention (see
   section  (a)  for application no. 66314/11 in "Facts")? Alternatively,
   was  there a violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article
   2 of Protocol No. 4?

   23944/13:

   Was  there  a violation of Article 5 S: 5 on account of the refusal to
   award  compensation  (decisions  of 22 November and 14 December 2012)?
   Alternatively,   was   there  a  violation  of  Article  13  taken  in
   conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4?

   35000/13 and 35010/13:

   1.  Was the criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention applicable in
   the  proceedings  under  the  CAO,  having  regard, inter alia, to the
   nature  and  gravity  of  the  statutory penalties, such as a fine and
   compulsory  community service, and the individual circumstances of the
   cases,  such  as  recourse  to  the  arrest  procedure  under  the CAO
   (административное задержание) in respect of the applicants? If so:

   -  Were   the   applicants'   cases  examined  by  courts  which  were
   "established  by  law"  as  required  under  Article  6  S:  1  of the
   Convention?

   -  Was  the  impartiality  requirement  respected,  in  particular  on
   account  of  the  absence of any prosecuting authority and the role of
   the judge in these circumstances (see, by way of comparison, Ozerov v.
   Russia,  no. 64962/01,  S:S:  52-57, 18 May 2010, and Blum v. Austria,
   no. 31655/02,  S:S:  36-38,  3 February  2005)? Did the same situation
   obtain  on  appeal?  Were  the  principle  of equality of arms and the
   requirement of adversarial procedure applicable and actually respected
   in the present cases? If yes, how? What was the procedural role of the
   authority  and public official who compiled the administrative offence
   record under the CAO?

   2.  Assuming  that the applicants did participate in a public assembly
   on  the  relevant  date, did the circumstances of each case disclose a
   violation  of  Articles  10  and  11  of the Convention, in particular
   bearing  in  mind  the alleged spontaneous nature of the assembly (see
   Eva Molnar v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, S:S: 36-38, 7 October 2008)?

   37038/13:

   1.  Was   the   applicant's   case   examined  by  courts  which  were
   "established  by  law"  as  required  under  Article  6  S:  1  of the
   Convention?

   2.  Assuming  that  the applicant did participate in a public assembly
   on  the  relevant  date,  did the circumstances of the case disclose a
   violation  of  Articles  10  and  11  of the Convention, in particular
   bearing  in  mind  the alleged spontaneous nature of the assembly (see
   Eva Molnar v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, S:S: 36-38, 7 October 2008)?

   42294/13:

   Was  there  a violation of Article 6 S:S: 1 and 3 of the Convention on
   account  of  the  decisions or omissions in relation to the disclosure
   and  examination  of  the  video and photo evidence in the applicant's
   case?  Was  the  applicant  afforded  an  adequate  opportunity to put
   forward her defence?

   42585/13:

   Noting  the  amount of the fine, the requirements of Articles 31.5 and
   20.25  of the CAO (up to three instalment payments and prosecution for
   non-payment,  respectively),  the applicant's precarious situation and
   the  constitutional  ruling of 14 February 2013, was there a violation
   of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant (cf. Budina
   v. Russia (dec.), no. 45603/05, 18 June 2009)?

   61443/13:

   1.  Was  the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in
   breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on 1 September 2012?

   2.  Was  Article  6  S:  1  of  the  Convention  under  its civil head
   applicable to the proceedings, which ended with the court decisions of
   5  April and 17 June 2013 (cf. Laidin v. France (no. 2), no. 39282/98,
   S:  76, 7 January 2003, and Slyusar v. Ukraine, no. 34361/06, S: 20, 8
   March  2012)?  If  so,  did  the  applicant have a fair hearing in the
   determination  of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with
   Article 6 S: 1 of the Convention?

   3.  Having  regard  to  the  findings of the civil courts, was there a
   violation of Article 6 S: 2 of the Convention?

                                  APPENDIX

                                    No.

                                Application

                                    no.

                                 Lodged on

                              Applicant's name

                             and date of birth

    1. 

   25501/07

   27/04/2007

   Marina Viktorovna NOVIKOVA

   28/02/1972

   *
    2. 

   44135/08

   31/07/2008

   Denis Viktorovich MATVEYEV

   10/12/1977

   *
    3. 

   2886/09

   06/11/2008

   Vyacheslav Aleksandrovich BASHKOV

   20/05/1977

   *
    4. 

   7941/09

   19/12/2008

   Gleb Vadimovich EDELEV

   25/05/1969

   *
    5. 

   40377/10

   19/06/2010

   Aleksandr Vladimirovich ZAKHARKIN

   01/08/1961

   *
    6. 

   57569/11

   26/08/2011

   Yuriy Ignatyevich MATSNEV

   27/10/1937

   *
    7. 

   66314/11

   07/10/2011

   Aleksandr Alekseyevich DEMIN

   27/06/1954

   *
    8. 

   80153/12

   10/11/2012

   Viktor Mikhaylovich SAVCHENKO

   18/10/1967

   *
    9. 

   5790/13

   30/11/2012

   Aleksandr Mikhaylovich KIRPICHENKO

   18/07/1984

   10. 

   23944/13

   25/02/2013

   Nina Tagirovna BELYAYEVA

   09/06/1956

   *
   11. 

   35000/13

   20/05/2013

   Filipp Igorevich TSUKANOV

   19/12/1984

   12. 

   35010/13

   20/05/2013

   Artem Aleksandrovich TORCHINSKIY

   28/06/1979

   13. 

   35015/13

   20/05/2013

   Valeriy Leonidovich ROMAKHIN

   30/07/1965

   14. 

   37038/13

   20/05/2013

   Igor Aleksandrovich TARASOV

   16/09/1980

   15. 

   42294/13

   02/06/2013

   Yelena Sergeyevna BELAN

   06/08/1961

   *
   16. 

   42585/13

   04/06/2013

   Svetlana Olegovna SVIDERSKAYA

   02/04/1949

   *
   17. 

   61443/13

   30/08/2013

   Eduard Anatolyevich NIKOLAYEV

   21/01/1971

   *

   ^Approx. 29 euros (per Bank of Russia rate on the relevant date)

   ^Approx. EUR 149

   ^apprx. EUR 123 and EUR 49

   ^Approx. EUR 505

   26 NOVIKOVA v. RUSSIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS -

                      STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS

                NOVIKOVA v. RUSSIA AND OTHER APPLICATIONS -

                    STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS 25

   


Если вы хотите поддержать нашу деятельность, то введите в поле ниже сумму в рублях, которую вы готовы пожертвовать и кликните кнопку рядом:

рублей.      


Поделиться в социальных сетях:

  Diaspora*

Комментарии:

Добавить комментарий:

Ваше имя или ник:

(Войти? Зарегистрироваться? Забыли пароль? Войти под OpenID?)

Ваш e-mail (не обязателен, если укажете - будет опубликован на сайте):

Ваш комментарий:

Введите цифры и буквы с картинки (защита от спам-роботов):

        

 

 

15.05.2015г. распоряжением Минюста РФ СРОО "Сутяжник" включена в реестр иностранных агентов.