CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 octobre 2017

.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 }   Communicated on 23 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 33527/16 Sergey Aleksandrovich TITARENKO against Russia lodged on 13 May 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In the present case the applicant was convicted in criminal proceedings of public appeals to extremist activities and held liable to a fine of 100,000   Russian roubles (approximately 1,350 euros) for reposting, on his VKontakte page, a text headlined “100 Million Dollars for a Physical Extermination of V.V. Putin”. The appellate court absolved the applicant from payment of the fine due to an amnesty act. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s pre-trial detention and criminal conviction for reposting on his VKontakte page a text headlined “100 Million Dollars for a Physical Extermination of V.V. Putin” constitute an interference with his right to freedom of expression, secured by Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention? In particular: (a)     Was it “prescribed by law”? In particular, could the domestic courts’ interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions in the applicant’s case be regarded as “foreseeable”?   (b)     Did the alleged interference pursue one or more legitimate aims? The Government are invited to indicate those aims.   (c)     Was it “necessary in a democratic society”? In particular, was there a “pressing social need” for the interference in question? Did the domestic courts base their relevant decisions on an acceptable assessment of relevant facts, apply the standards which were in conformity with the principles embodies in Article 10 of the Convention and adduce “relevant and sufficient” reasons? Was the requirement of proportionality satisfied in the present case?   3.     The Government are invited to provide expert report no. 14/L/15 of 25   February 2015 and expert report no. 072/13 of 2 May 2014.