CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 décembre 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 10 December 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 47434/18 Igor Nikolayevich BURDUKOV against Russia lodged on 27 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant staged a solo demonstration at which he wore a banner on his back and also had next to him a wooden stand with two banners attached to it. He was then sentenced to a fine because the courts considered that the situation fell within the scope of solo demonstrations with recourse to “quickly (de)assembled object(s) obstructing passers-by or traffic”; the use of this type of objects required a prior notification of a solo demonstration to and the approval by the competent local authority in the same manner as rallies. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were there violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? In particular, which of the legitimate aims listed in their second paragraphs were pursued by both the applicable legislation and the imposition of the fine on the applicant? Was there any “pressing social need” for such regulation and for prosecuting the applicant?   2.     Was the requirement of objective impartiality under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention violated on account of the lack of a prosecuting party at the trial and appeal hearings and the use of the offence record as evidence proving the applicant’s guilt (see Karelin v. Russia , no. 926/08, 20   September 2016)?