DYACHKOV v. RUSSIA and 2 other applications

 
Communicated on 14 March 2019
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 49351/18
Nikolay Yuryevich DYACHKOV against Russia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES
Mr Navalnyy, a Russian politician, was not authorised to stand as a candidate in the 2018 presidential election. He then launched a campaign called “Voters’ strike”, inter alia, calling voters not to cast a vote in the presidential election. The applicants ordered and/or distributed (in one manner or another) leaflets relating to that campaign. They were then sentenced to fines from 1,000 to 4,500 Russian roubles[1] because the actions of two applicants (Application nos. 49351/18 and 50054/18) were classified as impediment to the work of an electoral committee and/or as impediment to the voting process, an offence under Article 5.69 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) and, for the third one (Application no. 50424/18) as distribution of “electoral campaigning” materials without providing a copy of them to an electoral committee, which is an offence under Article 5.12 of the CAO.[2]
Common QUESTIONS
1. Was there a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the fine imposed on each applicant? In particular:
- Was the interference “prescribed by law” (see also below under Article 7 of the Convention as regards two applicants)? As to Application no. 50424/18, was it foreseeable that Russian law (including sections 49 and 54 of the Presidential Election Act of 10 January 2003) prohibited expression - by non-candidates – containing calls to boycott an election or restricts such expression by way of classifying them as electoral campaigning?
- What legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2 was sought to be achieved by the applicable legislation (compare Orlovskaya Iskra v. Russia, no. 42911/08, §§ 99-105, 21 February 2017)?
- Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society”? Did the domestic authorities adduce relevant and sufficient reasons for it?
 
2. Was there a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention, inter alia, on account of the lack of an opportunity to examine police officers or other public officials (compare with Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, §§ 94-103, 13 February 2018)?
ADDITIONAL CASE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Applications nos. 49351/18 and 50054/18:
 
3. Was there a violation of Article 7 of the Convention in respect of each applicant? In particular:
- Does the Russian law provide for an enforceable legal obligation to cast a vote? Does Russian law (including section 1 of the Presidential Election Act of 10 January 2003[3]) prohibit a peaceful act of leafleting suggesting that one should choose to abstain from voting in an election?
- Was it foreseeable that a call to boycott an election constituted an offence under Article 5.69 of the CAO, namely “interference with the work of an electoral committee” or “impediments to the participation of voters in the voting process”?
 
4. Was there a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the lack of a prosecuting party at the court hearings?
 
Application no. 50424/18:
 
5. Was there a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s pre-trial deprivation of liberty on 14 March 2018 in relation to his distribution of leaflets on 10 March 2018?
APPENDIX
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Nationality
Represented by
49351/18
10/10/2018
Nikolay Yuryevich DYACHKOV
26/03/1991
Ivanovo
Russian
 
 
 
 
 
Ivan Yuryevich ZHDANOV
 
50054/18
16/10/2018
Roman Aleksandrovich KOROTAYEV
01/07/1978
Berezniki
Russian
50424/18
23/10/2018
Bulat Nurlanovich NIGMATULLIN
21/05/1987
Naberezhnyye Chelny
Russian
Denis Viktorovich SHEDOV

[1]. Some 13 and 65 euros at the time.
[2]. Article 5.69 of the CAO reads as follows: “Interference with the work of an electoral committee or a referendum committee, where such interference entails a violation of the established procedure relating to their work or causes impediments to the participation of voters in the voting process, is punishable by a fine …”
[3]. Section 1 § 2 read as follows: “… No one is allowed to put pressure on a Russian citizen with the aim of compelling him or her to take part in a presidential election or to abstain from taking part in it  …”

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy