CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA7249FE7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; text-align:justify } .s14CD9608 { width:17.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4487F6EE { margin-left:12.51pt; text-align:center; padding-left:5.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD525AEBE { height:117.5pt } .s97133FCC { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s5992263B { height:26.9pt } .s63C4067D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s299B0C58 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 26 July 2021   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 38105/17 and 42210/19 Ivan Aleksandrovich MALININ against Russia and Karim Bekmirzayevich YAMADAYEV against Russia lodged on 13 May 2017 and 22 July 2019 respectively communicated on 8 July 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant in case no.   38105/17 collected signatures in a “specially designated location” [1] using an A-frame information stander. The applicant in case no.   42210/19 on two different dates set up two “installations”, one using mannequins and another one using a gravestone and a fence, to protest against political repressions and restrictions on freedom of speech in the internet. On the latest occasion, he put his installation in place, published its photo to his social network account and left the venue. Domestic courts in each case considered that the applicants’ actions constituted solo demonstrations with recourse to “quickly (de)assembled objects” and convicted them in administrative proceedings of a failure to lodge a prior notification of their demonstrations to a competent local authority.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the administrative offence proceedings against both applicants for a failure to notify a solo demonstration with recourse to a “quickly (de)assembled object” and the second applicant’s administrative arrest (application no.   42210/19) violate their right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention read in the light of Article   11 (compare Novikova and Others v. Russia , nos. 25501/07 and 4 others, 26   April 2016)? In particular: (a)     Was the “interference” prescribed by law? Was it a foreseeable and reasonable interpretation of the law (see, in so far as relevant, Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§   108-10, ECHR 2015, and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, §§   113 and 117-18, 15 November 2018): -             to classify the first applicant’s collecting signatures in a “specially designated location” as a public event requiring a prior notification, where the maximum capacity of 100 persons was not exceeded (case no.   38105/17); -             to classify the second applicant’s actions as a public event in the form of solo demonstration, given, in particular, that he had allegedly immediately left the venue after having put his “installation” in place (case no.   42210/19, events of 10   March 2019)? -             to classify both applicants’ actions as solo demonstrations with recourse to “quickly (de)assembled objects” ( быстровозводимые сборно ‑ разборные конструкции )? Was the domestic provision concerning “quickly (de)assembled objects” formulated with sufficient precision to enable the applicants to foresee, to a degree that was reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which their use of a stander in a “specially designated location” (case no.   38105/17) or two “installations” (case no.   42210/19) could entail? (b)     In each case, which of the legitimate aims were pursued by both the applicable legislation and the imposition of the sanctions on the applicants? Was there any “pressing social need” for such statutory requirement and for prosecuting the applicants? Did the domestic courts perform a careful balancing exercise between the need to punish a breach of the prior notification requirement and the applicant’s right to freedom of expression? Was the “interference” shown to have been necessary and proportionate?   2.     In each case, were the courts which dealt with the applicants’ cases impartial, as required by Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (see Karelin v.   Russia , no.   926/08, §§   38-85, 20 September 2016)? Reference is being made to the first-instance proceedings of 12   March 2019 (case no.   42210/19, 2 nd episode); and to the remaining proceedings at both levels of jurisdiction.   3.     In case no.   42210/19 (events of 10   March 2019), has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article   5 of the Convention on account of his escorting to the police station and arrest pending trial (see Navalnyy and Yashin v.   Russia , no.   76204/11, §§   89-98, 4   December 2014)?   4.     In case no.   42210/19 (both episodes), did the absence of suspensive effect of an appeal against the sentence of administrative detention undermine the applicant’s right to have his conviction reviewed, as required by Article   2 of Protocol no.   7 to the Convention (see Tsvetkova and Others v.   Russia , nos.   54381/08 and 5   others, §§   179-91, 10   April 2018)?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name Year of birth Place of residence Nationality   Represented by   Solo demonstration, details Final judgment (date, court) Conviction, sanction   38105/17   13/05/2017 Ivan Aleksandrovich MALININ 1997 Novocheboksarsk Russian     Aleksey Vladimirovich GLUKHOV   11/08/2016, Novocheboksarsk - collecting signatures discontinued by the police one hour later   15/11/2016 Supreme Court of the Republic of Chuvashia Article 20.2   §   2 of the CAO Administrative fine of RUB   20,000   / 42210/19*   22/07/2019 Karim Bekmirzayevich YAMADAYEV 1981 Naberezhnyye Chelny Russian     Aleksey Vladimirovich GLUKHOV 20/01/2019, Naberezhnyye Chelny - applicant arrested until the examination of his case by a trial court on 21/01/2019   23/01/2019 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan   Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO Eight days’ administrative arrest   10/03/2019, Naberezhnyye Chelny (behind the Investigative Committee building) - applicant arrested until the examination of his case by a trial court on 12/03/2019   19/03/2019 Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan   Article   20.2   §   8 of the CAO Twenty-eight days’ administrative arrest       [1] “Specially designated locations” for collective discussion of important issues and for mass gatherings of citizens for the public expression of opinion on matters of social and political importance are defined by regional authorities (section   8(1.1) of the Public Events Act). No notification is required for a public event held in such a location with participation of less than one hundred persons (Law No.   77 of 30/11/2012 of the Chuvashia Republic).