I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in KOTLYARSKIY v. RUSSIA and 13 other applications.

Information

• Judgment date: 2020-10-20
• Communication date: 2016-05-17
• Application number(s): 15024/12;15027/12;21041/12;21052/12;21056/12;21059/12;21065/12;21066/12;21068/12;21072/12;21096/12;21102/12;42535/12;57141/12
• Country:   RUS
• Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 6, 6-1, 11, 11-1
• Conclusion:
  Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)
  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings
  Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)
• Result: Violation
SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

• Probability: 0.670501
• Prediction: Violation

• Consistent

Communication text used for prediction

Application no 15024/12Aleksey Petrovich KOTLYARSKIY against Russiaand 13 other applications(see list appended) The applicants are eighteen Russian nationals; they are listed in the Appendix.
Some of them are represented before the Court (see the Appendix).
A.
The circumstances of the cases These applications are based on the events examined in the judgment Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia (no.
76204/11, §§ 6-11, 4 December 2014).
The facts relevant to these cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 4 December 2011 general elections to the State Duma took place in Russia.
On 5 December 2011 the applicants took part in a public demonstration (a meeting) at Chistyye Prudy, Moscow, protesting against the elections, which they alleged had been rigged.
The meeting had been duly authorised by the mayor of Moscow.
After the demonstration the protesters, including the applicants, were arrested, allegedly for no reason, put into police busses and taken to different police stations.
The applicants were detained for several hours before being brought before Justices of the Peace.
On different dates all the applicants were found guilty of failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer, an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and sentenced to either administrative fines or administrative detention, as listed in the Appendix.
These judgments were upheld in all cases by the appellate and supervisory courts (see the Appendix).
B.
Relevant domestic law For relevant domestic law see Navalnyy and Yashin (cited above, §§ 43‐44).
COMPLAINTS The applicants’ complaints are indicated in the Appendix.
All the applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention about the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate measures taken against them as peaceful protesters.
A number of them also complain under Article 5 of the Convention about their arrest and detention, alleging that it was arbitrary and had no legal grounds (see the Appendix).
All the applicants further complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings in which they were convicted of an administrative offence fell short of the guarantees of a fair hearing.
The applicants claim, in particular, that the courts based their findings exclusively on the evidence submitted by the police officers and refused to accept additional evidence, such as video recordings, or to call defence witnesses, as listed in the Appendix.
They further maintain that the courts declined to take into account their versions of the events as well as the defence witnesses’ statements, while giving weight to the police officers’ statements.
Finally, the applicants complain that the impartiality requirement was not respected in their cases owing to the absence of any prosecuting authority; that role was allegedly performed by the judge.
Some of the applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention about poor conditions of their detention at different police stations and about their transfers between the detention facilities, as listed in the Appendix.
Several applicants raise separate complaints under Article 6 § 3 (b), (c) and (d) of the Convention.
Mr Ilupin complains about lack of adequate facilities to prepare his defence, given that he was not given a copy of the report on the administrative offence which went before the first-instance hearing (see the Appendix).
Furthermore, Mr Yudin, Mr Dzhalagoniya, Mr Orel, Mr Tarasov, Mr Kondrashev, Mrs L. Krutenko and Ms T. Krutenko allege that they had no access to a lawyer after their arrest and at the first-instance trial.
They also complain, together with Mr Apakidze, Mr Vlasov and Mr Doronin, about the courts’ refusal to call prosecution witnesses, namely the police officers who had drawn up the administrative reports.
COMMON QUESTIONS 1.
As regards each applicant, has there been an interference with his or her freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?
2.
Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the administrative proceedings against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as regards each applicant’s trial: (a) Has the principle of equality of arms been respected, in particular as regards the admission and the assessment of evidence by the courts?
(b) Were the applicants afforded the opportunity to plead their case in the domestic courts, in particular to submit additional evidence or to call defence witnesses?
(c) Was the impartiality requirement respected in each case, given the absence of any prosecuting authority and the role of the judge in these circumstances?
CASE-SPECIFIC