CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 août 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s3D566438 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sCCCB1D48 { width:27.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF32269C { width:21%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s70EE3172 { width:20.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBB147DB { width:23.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBFC48707 { width:7.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s45A4652F { width:27.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s7843577C { width:21%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9337260A { width:20.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1558D2D3 { width:23.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 13 September 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4468/21 Saida Magomedovna TUCHALOVA and Others against Russia lodged on 14 January 2021 communicated on 25 August 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2018 the applicants organised a festival in Dagestan called “AniDag” intended for the fans of anime, Asian and geek-culture . This event was allegedly authorised by Ministry of Youth of the Dagestan Republic and Administration of the Dagestan Republic. Once the information about the event became public, a number of individuals, who opposed the theme of the event, proceeded to threaten and offend organisers and participants. Police officers present on the spot did not constrain the attackers, but allegedly supported them and let them inside the venue. Fearing for their life and health and that of the participants, the applicants were forced to cancel the festival. The applicants’ complaint about failure of the police officers to properly discharge their duties was dismissed by the domestic courts.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? 2.     Were the applicants subjected by private individuals to treatment   contrary to Article 3 of the Convention during the festival? If so, did the authorities discharge their obligation to protect the applicants from such treatment? In particular, did the authorities take reasonable measures that might have been expected in order to avert a real and immediate risk of ill-treatment, of which the authorities knew or should have known? (see Volodina v. Russia , no. 41261/17, §§ 71-91, 9 July 2019, and X and Others v.   Bulgaria , no. 22457/16, §§ 176-83, 2 February 2021)? 3.     Were the applicants forced to cancel the festival due to security threats posed by the attack of private individuals? Did the domestic authorities ensure that the festival could take place peacefully by protecting the organisers and participants from offensive and potentially violent conduct of the private individuals? Did the authorities comply with their positive obligations under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention (see Dink v.   Turkey , nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 106, 14 September 2010, and Berkman v.   Russia , no. 46712/15 §§ 45-49, 1 December 2020)?   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Saida Magomedovna TUCHALOVA 1993 Russian Makhachkala 2. Angelina Artemovna BAGDASAROVA 1997 Russian Georgiyevsk 3. Luiza Dmitriyevna LEONOVA   1996 Russian Izberbash 4. Kaleb Shagabutinovich SHMIDT 1991 Russian Makhachkala