CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 12 July 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 65031/16 Valentina Olegovna LAPSHINA against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern convictions of the applicants, Russian nationals, under Article   20.2.2 § 1 of the Federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) that punishes actions consisting in organising “simultaneous crowded presence of people (while not amounting to a public event within the meaning of the Public Events Act) in the same public place”, in particular: -     as regards Ms Lapshina, on 4 December 2015 (five people) and 5   December 2015 (twenty people) when, as claimed by the authorities, she was offering passers-by to have their pictures taken together with pet pigeons. On 14 June 2016 the appeal courts upheld each conviction; they dismissed her argument that she had been merely having a stroll running into or meeting with friends, and also stated that her arrests on the above dates had been lawful. -     as regards Ms Mishina, on 23 December 2015 (thirty people) when, as claimed by the authorities, she was offering passers-by to have a ride on a pony and thus was blocking access to a metro station. The appeal court upheld the conviction; it dismissed her argument that she had been merely indulging her child and a couple of friends with a pony ride, and also stated that her arrest had been lawful. -     as regards Mr Vyatkin, on 10 February 2016 (ten people) when he was performing on a street by way of, in a manner, playing music on a saw with an amplifier. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Noting the related findings of the courts in the CAO cases, has each applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, for the complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly unlawful and/or arbitrary arrest? If yes, were the requirements of this Article respected? In particular, prior to the arrests did the police officers have reasons to hold a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed an offence under Article 20.2.2 of the CAO, that is, they willfully organised the “crowded” presence of people around them and had thereby effectively impeded access to buildings, metro or alike (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 155, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV)?   2.     Having regard to their specific grievances, did each applicant have a fair hearing by an impartial tribunal in the determination of the charge, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: -     Was this Article violated on account of the lack of a prosecuting party in the oral or de facto written procedure before the courts (see Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, 20   September 2016)? -     Was each applicant afforded an adequate opportunity to defend herself/himself, to contest adverse evidence, to examine witnesses against her/him and to obtain, under the same conditions, the attendance of witnesses on her/his behalf, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(b)-(d) of the Convention? Was it arbitrary to justify the finding of guilt with reference to a record of administrative offence used as a piece of (adverse) evidence? What was the evidentiary probative value of this record and the record of administrative arrest?     APPENDIX     No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence     65031/16 21/10/2016 Valentina Olegovna LAPSHINA 04/03/1996 Fryazino   67815/16 07/11/2016 Svetlana Nikolayevna MISHINA 01/04/1983 Moscow   10415/17 23/01/2017 Sergey Kapitonovich VYATKIN 01/09/1960 Moscow