CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 10 June 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no.   10504/18 Dmitriy Vladimirovich ZUBAREV and Others against Russia (see table appended) PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Following a preliminary examination of the admissibility of the application on 16 May 2024, the Court decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Russia. In the enclosed table, whenever an applicant is referred to using initials, this indicates that the Court has authorised anonymity for that person, whose identity will not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). For further information on the procedure following communication of an application brought against Russia, subject of well-established case law of the Court, please refer to the Court’s website . SUBJECT MATTER The application concern complaints raised under Article 11 of the Convention relating to disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies which are the subject of well-established case law of the Court (see Frumkin v. Russia, no. 74568/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts), Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia, no. 76204/11, 4 December 2014 and Kasparov and Others v. Russia, no. 21613/07, 3 October 2013). APPENDIX – STATEMENT OF FACTS Application raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (disproportionate measures against organisers and participants of public assemblies) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the public event Location Date Administrative / criminal offence Penalty Final domestic decision Court Name Date Other complaints under well-established case-law 10504/18 14/11/2017 Dmitriy Vladimirovich ZUBAREV 1987   Vladimir Ivanovich ZUBAREV 1956   Galina Ivanovna ZUBAREVA 1956   Natalya Anatolyevna Kasilova Vladivostok Rally against corruption (the first applicant)   Vladivostok   26/03/2017   article 19.3 § 1 of CAO             and     article 20.2 § 5 of CAO administrative detention of 15 days           and     fine of RUB   10,000 Primorye Regional Court 12/05/2017 (a full copy of the judgment issued on 16/05/2017)     and     Primorye Regional Court 05/07/2017 Art. 5 (1) - unlawful detention - arrest, escorting to a police station, detention of the first applicant: (i) on 26/03/2017 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record (article 20.2 § 5 of the CAO), and (ii) on 20/02/2018 for the sole purpose of drawing up an offence record in respect of the rally of 28/01/2018 (article 20.2 § 8 of the CAO),   Art. 6 (1) - lack of impartiality of the tribunal in view of the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative-offence proceedings - the first and second sets of proceedings in respect of the first applicant (final judgments of 12/05/2017 and 05/07/2017),   Art. 6 (1) - unfair trial in administrative offence proceedings - inability to adduce evidence on equal footing with the prosecution (refusal to admit a video footage of the first applicant’s arrest in the second set of proceedings, final judgment of 05/07/2017),   Art. 6 (1) - and Art. 6 (3) (d) - unfair trial in view of restrictions on the right to examine witnesses - inability to cross-examine in open court police officers on whose written statements the first applicant’s conviction was based (second set of proceedings, final judgment of 05/07/2017),   Art. 8 (1) - Home - Search of the flat in which the three applicants lived, conducted on 05/05/2017 in connection with criminal investigation in respect of unidentified persons concerning use of violence against a police officer during the rally of 26/03/2017- court search warrant of 04/05/2017 issued by the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok, upheld on appeal on 08/08/2017 by the Primorye Regional Court; specific defects: no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: applicant not a suspect, no adequate and sufficient safeguards against abuse: broad terms/wide content and scope of the search warrant (objects and documents not specific enough to restrict police’s discretion), no relevant or sufficient reasons to justify the search: no reasonable suspicion as the basis for the search authorisation,   Art. 10 (1) - measures in relation to media coverage of public assemblies - Voters’ Strike, 28/01/2018, Vladivostok – the first applicant was present as a journalist. On 20/02/2018 an administrative-offence record under article 20.2 § 8 of CAO was compiled in respect of him. On 28/02/2018 the police discontinued the proceedings, for the lack of corpus delicti. The applicant claimed compensation for an alleged breach of his right to liberty and freedom of expression on account of the arrest and unlawful administrative-offence proceedings. The courts awarded him RUB 3,000 (EUR 32) of compensation for unlawful arrest on 20/02/2018 and rejected the remainder of the claims. Final judgment of 07/04/2021 by the Supreme Court of Russia.