CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 19 January 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 56105/17 Gennadiy Gennadyevich MAKAROV against Russia lodged on 17 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was sentenced to a five-day detention for posting an edited picture of President Putin wearing makeup. Final decision: Lipetsk Regional Court, 15 June 2017. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the Russian courts apply the standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the Convention? Did they take into account the context in which the publication was made and identify the legitimate aim of the interference? Did they consider the way in which the applicant should have become aware that the picture had been declared extremist? Did they consider the proportionality of the sanction and the issue whether a warning or another, less intrusive measure could have been sufficient to achieve the desired dissuasive effect?   2.     Was it compatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 that the custodial sentence had been fully served before the appeal hearing could take place (see Shvydka v. Ukraine , no. 17888/12, §§ 46-55, 30 October 2014)?