CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 2023

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 20 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 39755/22 Aleksandrs GAPOŅENKO against Latvia lodged on 5 August 2022 communicated on 3 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant claims to be a political activist advocating for the rights of the Russian-speakers residing in Latvia. Owing to the contents of his posts on social media in the time period from 27 February to 31 March 2015, criminal proceedings were instituted for incitement to national and ethnic hatred and discord by using an automated data processing system (no.   11840001615). By a final decision of 7   April 2022 the applicant was convicted; a ten-month suspended prison sentence and a two-year probation was imposed. The applicant claims that the Probation Service imposed a two-year ban on him to post any opinions about important issues in the society online. The applicant complains that his conviction was in breach of Article 10 of the Convention. He also invokes Article 6 of the Convention alleging that there was arbitrariness and insufficient reasoning. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s conviction constitute an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article   10   §   1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference justified under Article   10   §   2? In particular, in the light of the severity of the measure and the reasons adduced by the national authorities, did the interference correspond to a “pressing social need” and was it proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see Perinçek v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 196-97 and 204-08, ECHR 2015 (extracts))?