CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 avril 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 20 April 2015   FIRST SECTION Application no. 5550/15 Andrey Nikolayevich BARABANOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were charged with criminal offences committed during the mass disorders that allegedly took place at a political rally held on 6   May 2012 at Bolotnaya Square in Moscow. Their submissions on the circumstances in which a demonstration took place and was dispersed by the authorities and their submissions concerning the conditions at the court hearing are essentially the same as in Akimenkov v. Russia , no. 50041/14, and 4 others applications, communicated to the Government on 13 October 2014. The facts relating to the applicants’ criminal proceedings are set out below. A.     The application of Mr Barabanov (no. 5550/15) At the time of arrest the applicant was working as an artist. On 6   May 2012 he took part in the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square. According to the applicant, at one point a stampede occurred and he attempted to leave the venue but could not do so. He was arrested at the site of the demonstration, according to him randomly. On 14 May 2012 the applicant was convicted of non-compliance with a lawful order by a police officer, an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences and was sentenced to a 24-hour’ detention. It appears that after his release the applicant continued his usual activities while living at the usual address. On 28 May 2012 the applicant’s flat was searched. On the same day he was detained on suspicion of having participated in mass disorders and of having used violence against the police during the demonstration on 6   May 2012. He was charged with the offences provided for by Articles 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in mass disorders) and 318 § 1 (violence against a public official). He was accused, in particular, of having taken part in a group assault on a police officer whereby the applicant had allegedly pulled a protection helmet off the officer’s head and had once punched him on the head and once kicked him on the body when the offer was lying on the ground. Apparently the officer had left the site of the assault unharmed. On the same day he was placed in pre-trial detention where he remained for one year and eight and a half months. On 26 December 2012 the applicant lodged an application with the Court concerning the grounds and the length of his detention on remand and the length of the appeal proceedings concerning his detention. This application (no. 4966/13) was communicated to the respondent Government on 10   September 2013, with priority granted under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court ( Akimenkov v. Russia , no. 2613/13, and 6 other applications). On 24 May 2013 the applicant’s criminal case file was submitted to the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of Moscow, and it began the hearing of the criminal case against the applicants and nine other persons. On 21 February 2014 the Zamoskvoretsky District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. He was sentenced to three years and seven months of imprisonment. On 20 June 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant is currently serving his prison sentence. B.     The application of Mr Polikhovich (no. 5562/15) At the time of his arrest the applicant was a second-year student of the Moscow University of Social Studies and was working part-time as a courier for an insurance company. On 6 May 2012 he took part in the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square. When the police were dispersing the protestors he intervened in what he had perceived as police violence against another protestor. On 26 July 2012 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having participated in mass disorders and of having used violence against the police during the demonstration of 6   May 2012. He was charged with the offences provided for by Articles 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in mass disorders) and 318 § 1 (violence against a public official). He was accused, in particular, of having pushed away the police officers who were arresting other protestors. On 27 July 2012 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered. He remained in detention for one year and seven and a half months. On 24 September 2013 the applicant lodged an application with the Court concerning the grounds and the length of his detention on remand, the poor conditions of detention and transfer and the confinement in a glass cage in courtroom. This application (no. 62630/13) was communicated to the respondent Government on 19   December 2013, with priority granted under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court ( Lutskevich v. Russia , no. 6312/13, and 3 other applications). On 24 May 2013 the applicant’s criminal case file was submitted to the Zamoskvoretsky District Court, and it began the hearing of the criminal case against the applicants and seven other persons. On 21 February 2014 the Zamoskvoretsky District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. He was sentenced to three years and six months of imprisonment. On 20 June 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant is currently serving his prison sentence. C.     The application of Mr Savelov (no. 5565/15) At the time of arrest he applicant, a former employee of the Moscow underground, was unemployed and lived with his parents. On 6   May 2012 he took part in the demonstration at Bolotnaya Square. According to the applicant, at one point a stampede occurred and he was accidentally pushed through the police cordon and was arrested without any resistance on his part. On the same day he was charged with non-compliance with a lawful order by a police officer, an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences. On 11 June 2012 the applicant was detained on suspicion of having participated in mass disorders on 6 May 2012. He was charged with the offences provided for by Articles 212 § 2 of the Criminal Code (participation in mass disorders) and 318 § 1 (violence against a public official). He was accused, in particular, of having attempted to break through the police codon and of having pulled a police officer on the hands and wrists towards the crowd. On 14 June 2012 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered. He remained in detention for one year and eight months. On 10 September 2012 the applicant lodged an application with the Court concerning the grounds and the length of his detention on remand and the length of the appeal proceedings concerning his detention. This application (no. 60882/12) was communicated to the respondent Government on 10 September 2013, with priority granted under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court ( Akimenkov v. Russia , no. 2613/13, and 6 other applications). On 24 May 2013 the applicant’s criminal case file was submitted to the Zamoskvoretsky District Court, and it began the hearing of the criminal case against the applicants and nine other persons. On 21 February 2014 the Zamoskvoretsky District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. He was sentenced to two years and seven months of imprisonment. On 20 June 2014 the Moscow City Court upheld the first-instance judgment. In December 2014 the applicant was released after having served his prison term. COMPLAINTS All applicants complain about a violation of their right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly following the security measures implemented by the authorities in relation to the authorised and peaceful political rally on Bolotnaya Square on 6 May 2012 which, in their view, had disrupted the demonstration, had been unlawful, arbitrary and not necessary in a democratic society. They further complain that the security measures in respect of the demonstration and their ensuing prosecution for criminal offences had been a reprisal for expressing views critical of the authorities and that it had an aim of discouraging the public events led by the opposition activists. These complaints fall to be examined under Articles   10, 11 and 18 of the Convention. All applicants complain that the conditions in the courtrooms during the hearing of their criminal case were inhuman and degrading, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, stressing in particular the difficulties caused by their placement in the glass and metal cages separating them from the rest of the hearing room. Referring to Article 6 of the Convention they also allege a violation of the right to a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings, claiming that the courts have disregarded the arguments and the evidence of excessive use of force by the police and convicted them arbitrarily and solely on the grounds of unreliable statements by the police officers. Mr Brabanov also complains that the court characterised the same acts as two separate criminal offences.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES I.     AS REGARDS THE DEMONSTRATION OF 6 MAY 2012 The Government are invited to supplement, if they wish, their submissions already made in cases Akimenkov v. Russia , no. 50041/14, and 4 others applications, questions 1-4 of part I), which the Court will take into account in the present case. II.     QUESTIONS RELATING TO ALL APPLICANTS As regards each of the applicants the Government are invited to answer the following questions:   1.     Having regard to the applicant’s specific allegations in respect of their arrest and the ensuing criminal charges, has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article   11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11   §   2?   2.     Have the same measures constituted an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?   3.     Were the crowd-control and security measures implemented and the applicants’ liberty restricted for the purpose of undermining the rights to freedom of assembly and expression, in breach of Article   18 of the Convention (see Gusinskiy v. Russia , no. 70276/01, ECHR 2004 ‑ IV)?   4.     Were the conditions of the applicants’ detention during the hearings at the Moscow City Court and the Nikulinskiy District Court of Moscow compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see, in particular, Svinarenko and Slyadnev v. Russia [GC], nos. 32541/08 and 43441/08, 17 July 2014)? In answering this question the Government need not reiterate the submissions already made in the cases Akimenkov v. Russia , no. 2613/13 and 6   other applications; Lutskevich v. Russia , no. 6312/13 and 3 other applications, and Akimenkov v. Russia , no. 50041/14 and 4 others applications, which the Court will take into account in the present case.   5.     Having regard to each applicant’s specific allegations in respect of the criminal proceedings, did they receive a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in accordance with Article 6 of the Convention? Appendix No Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Nationality Represented by   5550/15 19/12/2014 Andrey Nikolayevich BARABANOV 25/06/1990 Moscow Russian   Yonko Miladinov GROZEV   5562/15 19/12/2014 Aleksey Alekseyevich POLIKHOVICH 29/08/1990 Moscow Russian   Yonko Miladinov GROZEV   5565/15 19/12/2014 Artem Viktorovich SAVELOV 14/05/1979 Moscow Russian   Yonko Miladinov GROZEV