CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 29 January 2020 Published on 17 February 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 48564/11 Aleksandr Vladimirovich YUFRYAKOV against Russia lodged on 10 June 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an attack on the applicant during a demonstration by private individuals who forcefully took away his banner and flag and destroyed them. The police officer present on the spot did not intervene, and the applicant’s complaint filed with the police to establish the perpetrators and to prosecute them was rejected on the grounds of insignificance. The courts upheld the decision dispensing with criminal proceedings in this case. The final decision was taken by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 18   January 2011. The applicant complains about the authorities’ failure to comply with the positive obligations under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, and about the absence of an effective domestic remedy for a violation of the right to freedom of expression and assembly. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the applicant’s allegations that the police did not intervene during the attack on the demonstration attended by the applicant and did not prosecute the perpetrators of the assault, did the authorities comply with their positive obligation under Article 11 of the Convention to enable the public event to proceed peacefully (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria , no. 44079/98, § 115, 20   October 2005)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?