CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 octobre 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 4 October 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 24517/18 Valentin Gennadyevich MURZAYEV against Russia lodged on 8 May 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE A Mr B. notified the local authority of his intention to hold a public assembly on 7 October 2017 in the town of Perm. The authority disagreed. However, the assembly was held, a Mr K. being in charge of running it. The applicant made a short speech during the assembly. On 8 October 2017 he was arrested. On 10 October 2017 he was sentenced to a fine under Article   20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) punishing public events’ organisers who violated requirements of the Public Events Act (PEA). The applicant was considered to be the above assembly’s organiser in that he had made a post on his VKontakte account providing information about the planned assembly. Thereby, in the court’s view, he had acted as the assembly’s organiser and thus was guilty of the non-compliance with the prior notification requirement. Also on 7 October 2017 the applicant took part together with other   150 people in a gathering ( митинг ) in front of a police station, which, allegedly, was a spontaneous reaction and a protest against the arrests of some participants of the above rally. Later on he was sentenced to a fine under Article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was there a violation of Article 7 of the Convention as regards the applicant’s conviction under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (see Žaja v.   Croatia , no. 37462/09, §§ 89-92, 4 October 2016)? In particular, was it a foreseeable interpretation of Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO read together with the PEA that, having classified the applicant as the assembly’s “organiser” because of his VKontakte post, he would be held liable for the non ‑ compliance with the prior notification requirement incumbent on public events’ organisers rather than participants?   2.     Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the administrative escorting of the applicant and his administrative arrest until the delivery of the trial judgment on 10 October 2017?   3.     Was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the lack of a prosecuting party in the above CAO cases against the applicant?   4.     Was the applicant convicted under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, in substance, on account of his expression? If yes, were there an “interference” under and a violation of Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant convicted, in substance, of the pre-event campaigning prior to the authority’s approval of the event’s venue and timing?   5.     Was there a violation of Article 11 of the Convention as regards the two public events on 7 October 2017?