CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 23 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 27294/14 Gennadiy Grigoryevich POLYAK against Russia and 8 other applications (see appended table) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern, primarily, pre-trial measures such as administrative escorting ( административное доставление ) and/or administrative arrest ( административное задержание ) in respect of the applicants under Articles 27.1-27.3 of the federal Code of Administrative Offences (CAO). COMMON QUESTION Was each applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? ADDITIONAL CASE-SPECIFIC ISSUES See “Communicated issues” in the appended Table.   In particular:   As regards application no. 27294/14: 1.1     In view of the related arguments at the trial and in the appeal and review proceedings, has the applicant complied with the six-month rule under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as regards the issue under Article   5 §   1 about the pre-trial deprivation of liberty? In this connection is it appropriate to take into account the review decisions dated 16   December 2013 and 14 March 2014 (compare with Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia , no.   42911/08, §§ 69-80, 21 February 2017; Annenkov and Others v. Russia , no. 31475/10, §§ 107-10, 25 July 2017; and Smadikov v. Russia (dec.). no.   10810/15, § 49, 31 January 2017)?   1.2.     Did his deprivation of liberty fall within the scope of Article 5 §   1 (e) or (c) of the Convention (compare with Kharin v. Russia , no. 37345/03, §§   30-47, 3 February 2011, and Rakhimberdiyev v. Russia , no.   47837/06, §§   35-36, 18 September 2014; see also Ruling no.   25-P of 17   November 2016 by the Russian Constitutional Court)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in compliance with Article 6 §§   1 and 3 (c)-(d) of the Convention (compare Frumkin v. Russia , no.   74568/12, §§ 165-66, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?   As regards application nos. 58518/14, 60398/15, 46442/17, 61668/17 and 61733/17:   1.     Has each applicant complied with the exhaustion requirement under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as regards the issue under Article   5 §   1 about the pre-trial deprivation of liberty? Taking into account whether the imputed offence was or was not punishable by administrative detention ( административный арест ), the outcome of each CAO case and – if appropriate –the applicant’s nationality (for application no.   60398/15), did each applicant have any prospect of success in: (a)     raising the related matters during a trial and/or in appeal or review proceedings under the CAO; and/or (b) seeking judicial review under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and/or (c)     obtaining an adequate monetary compensation under: - the special rules of Article   1070 § 1 and Article 1100 of the Civil Code; or - the general rules of tort liability under Article 1070 § 2 in conjunction with Article 1069 of the Civil Code (compare Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§   113-14 and 229, 10   January 2012; also compare with the jurisprudence of the Russian Constitutional Court: Ruling no.   9-P of 16   June 2009; Decision no.   1049-O of 2 July 2013; Ruling no.   8-P of 17   March 2017; Ruling no.   25-P of 17   November   2016 (section 3)); or -     Articles 1069 and 1100 read with Article 16.1 of the Civil Code; and/or (d)     seeking institution of criminal proceedings, for instance, under Articles 127, 286 or 301 of the Criminal Code (compare Leonid Petrov v.   Russia , no.   52783/08, §§   49-50, 11 October 2016; Aleksandr Sokolov v.   Russia , no.   20364/05, § 66, 4 November 2010; Aleksandr Andreyev v.   Russia, no.   2281/06, §§   34-45 and 47-51, 23   February 2016; and Smirnova v. Russia (dec.), no. 37267/04, 8 July 2014)?   The respondent Government are invited to submit examples of domestic judgments (preferably, issued by the Russian Supreme Court or Constitutional Court) concerning the matters mentioned above, inter alia , the prospects of success and adequacy of monetary awards during the relevant periods of time (that is between 2014 and 2017).   2.     Was Article 13 of the Convention applicable in conjunction with Article   5 § 1 in respect of administrative escorting and/or administrative arrest (see Aleksandra Dmitriyeva v. Russia , no. 9390/05, §§ 114-15, 3   November 2011, and Iustin Robertino Micu v. Romania , no. 41040/11, §§   109-11, 13 January 2015)? If yes, has there been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention?   As regards application no.   72051/17: Was there a violation of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention? In particular: -     As to the sets of proceedings under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 5 of the CAO, when there was a “final” decision in one set of proceedings and did it entail duplication of proceedings and punishments? -     Alternatively (see A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, § 126, ECHR 2016), did the proceedings have a sufficiently close connection both in substance and in time with each other and constitute complementary legal responses to socially offensive conduct (ibid, §§   121 ‑ 25 and 130-32)? If yes, did such accumulated legal responses represent an excessive burden for the applicant and entail, in substance or in effect, double jeopardy to her detriment (ibid)? Were the possible consequences of organising the legal treatment of the conduct concerned in such a manner proportionate and foreseeable for the applicant?     APPENDIX No. Application no. and date of introduction Applicant name date of birth place of residence nationality Represented by Deprivation of liberty and domestic decision details Communicated issues     27294/14 28/03/2014 Gennadiy Grigoryevich POLYAK 22/07/1971 Michurinsk Russian   Administrative escorting and arrest from 1 to 2 August 2013   judgment of 02/08/2013; appeal decision of 04/09/2013; 1 st review decision of 16/12/2013; 2 nd review decision of 14/03/2014 Article 5§1: unlawful administrative escorting and administrative arrest   ;   Article 6§§1 and 3(c)-(d): unfairness resulting, inter alia , from restriction on the defence’s ability to contest adverse evidence by way of examining officers M. and B.; refusal to examine a security-camera recording     58518/14 05/08/2014   Andrey Valeryevich SEMOCHKIN 23/06/1982 Volgograd Russian     Administrative arrest on 5-7 March 2014   judgment of 07/03/2014; appeal decision of 25/03/2014; 1st review decision of 20/08/2014 (discontinuation due to expiry of the prosecution period) Article 5§1: unlawful administrative arrest   ;   Article 13 (in substance)   : lack of an effective remedy for the above issue;   Article 6§§1 and 3(c)-(d): no opportunity to retain counsel for the trial and to examine a police officer; the court’s refusal to assist in obtaining video evidence from a public enterprise     60398/15 16/11/2015 Radu FOKSHA 06/08/1976 Hîncești Moldavian       Administrative escorting (and arrest) on 24/06/2015   judgment of 24/06/2015; appeal decision of 14/07/2015; 1st review decision of 24/09/2015 Article 5§1: unlawful administrative escorting (and arrest) Article 13   : lack of an effective remedy     46442/17 25/06/2017 Andrey Aleksandrovich MASHARO 04/04/1973 St Petersburg Russian Irina Leonidovna URADOVSKIKH Administrative arrest from 11 p.m. on 24 August to 5.20 p.m. on 26 August 2016   Sentenced on 25/08/2016 to a fine by a police officer; judgment of 15/12/2016; appeal decision of 26/01/2017 Article 5§1: unlawful administrative arrest;   Article 5§2: no information about reasons for this arrest (cf. Malofeyeva v. Russia , no.   36673/04, §§ 68-73, 30   May 2013)   Article 13: no effective remedy for the above issues       53795/17 17/07/2017   Artem Valeryevich PARFENOV 06/03/1994 Armavir Russian   Konstantin Ilyich TEREKHOV administrative escorting and arrest on 23-24 March 2017   judgment of 24/03/2017, appeal decision of 12/04/2017   Article 5§1: arbitrary and unlawful arrest and detention prior and during the trial;   Article 6§1: lack of a prosecuting party at hearings (requirement of objective impartiality); Article 6§§1 and 3: lack of an opportunity to contact a lawyer (for pre-trial and trial proceedings) and its adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings;   Article 2 of Protocol No. 7: lack of a suspensive effect of an appeal vis-a-vis execution of the sentence of administrative detention     61668/17 11/08/2017 Eduard Viktorovich SHITIK 01/05/1961 Fedorovskoye Russian   Administrative escorting (and arrest) on 29 April 2017 judgment of 12/05/2017; appeal decision of 13/06/2017 Article 5§1: unlawful administrative escorting and arrest;   Article 13 (in substance)   : lack of an effective remedy for the above issue;   Article 6§1: lack of a prosecuting party at court hearings     61733/17 11/08/2017 Shakhnaz Davudovna SHITIK 13/07/1964 Fedorovskoye Russian   Administrative escorting (and arrest) on 29 April 2017 judgment of 12/05/2017; appeal decision of 13/06/2017 Article 5§1: unlawful administrative escorting and arrest;   Article 13 (in substance)   : lack of an effective remedy for the above issue;   Article 6§1: lack of a prosecuting party at court hearings     71399/17 27/09/2017   Nikita Aleksandrovich MILESHIN 27/07/1998 Korolev Russian     Kamalia MEHTIYEVA administrative escorting and arrest on 26 and 27 March 2017   judgment of 27/03/2017, appeal decision of 31/03/2017   Article 5§1: failure to comply with the requirements of Articles 27.1-27.3 of the CAO     72051/17 21/09/2017   Katerina Olegovna KORNEYEVA 17/02/1996 St Petersburg Russian   Aleksandr Dmitriyevich PEREDRUK administrative escorting and administrative arrest on 12-13 June 2017;   two cases (Articles 19.3 and 20.2 of the CAO): judgments of 16/06/2017, appeal decisions of 29/06/2017   Article 5§1: unlawful escorting and arrest;   Article 6§1: lack of a prosecuting party at the trial hearings in both cases (objective impartiality); Article 6§§1 and 3(d) in both cases: lack of an opportunity to examine police officers at the trial or on appeal; restrictions on the defence’s ability to contest the adverse written evidence;   Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No.   7: tried and punished twice on account of the same facts