Translated material
The government is asked questions
Communication of the complaint means that the ECHR does not consider the file filed and sends questions about it to the national government. The complaints were communicated on June 13, but this was known only on July 4.
Application of the practice of the ECHR in Russian courts on adm. offenses at rallies
The complaint “Karelian and others against Russia” was filed in the ECHR in the framework of the coalition project of the Memorial human rights center, the Public Verdict Foundation, ANO Yuriks and the OTD-Info , created in the wake of mass detentions on February 21 and 24, when at least 882 people opposed the verdict in the “swamp case”. Lawyers of human rights organizations and the volunteers prepared by them led 120 cases of detainees, and then sent complaints 32 of them in the ECHR.
In connection with the detentions of December 30, the ECHR combined four complaints into one thing. Three of them were prepared by the senior legal expert of the Center for the Protection of International Protection Karinna Moskalenko, another, the collective complaint of the two detainees - the head of the legal department of the Public Verdict Foundation Elena Pershakova.
02.21
On February 21, cordons were exhibited around the Zamoskvoretsky court, and only journalists and relatives of the accused began to be allowed into the building from a certain point. People gathered on the street were delayed indiscriminately - both those who shouted slogans, and those who stood on the sidewalk. The detainees carried ten different police deposits, they did not leave anyone at night, many protocols were drawn up on Part 5 of Art. 20.2 Administrative Code (violations of the procedure for holding a public event) and Art. 19.3 (disobedience to the legal request of the police), after which the courts took place, where the detainees were sentenced to fines.
This day was the first in a series of mass protests in Moscow and hard answers in the form of mass detentions. On February 24, the sentence of the sentence continued (and ended), and people were already detained by the court ( more than 230 people ), in the building of which they were not allowed again, and in the evening of the same day in the city center ( at least 430 people ). This time it was not without administrative arrests. And on March 2, people in Moscow took to the streets in connection with the decision of the Federation Council to allow the use of the Armed Forces in Ukraine - the police detained more than 360 people, many were left to the police department for the night, some were sent under arrest.
According to the senior lawyer of the Memorial human rights center, Kirill Koroteev, on February 21, the courts (the cases of the detainees in the first instance were considered by the Zamoskvoretsky court, and in many cases the Moscow city court left its decisions in many cases) for the first time they began to massively apply a new provision on rallies on a fine of 10 thousand rubles for violations at events. The maximum possible fine under Art. 20.2 was increased from one thousand to thirty in the summer of 2012, but during the year, fines for new “tariffs” did not become a widespread practice.
The detainees on February 21 came to court, focusing for the time indicated by the “obligation of the turnout” signed by the police (which, as Koroteev indicates, “is not a document according to which you are obliged to be anywhere”: in accordance with the law, the police transfer the case to the court, which can return the protocol to the police, and if he does not return, notifies the agenda that the case is accepted for the case consideration). At the same time, for many hours they had to find out in which hall and how much will be considered their business and whether it will be considered at all. Many were faced with the fact that things were considered in their absence.
Regarding the detentions, on February 21 and 24 , the then Commissioner for Human Rights Vladimir Lukin, who noted that the leadership of the Zamoskvoretsky court did not ensure the “implementation of the constitutional principle of openness and publicity of legal proceedings”.
The events on February 21 and 24 became the reason for the creation of the instructions for independent protection in court , which largely lost its relevance, as part of the coalition project mentioned above. It contains, in particular, descriptions of human rights, which has been imputed by an administrative offense, petition templates and complaints.
In connection with the events of February 21, two complaints were filed in the ECHR: in one nine applicants, one in the other one. All of them complained of violation:
Art. 6 On the right to a fair trial - when considering their cases, there was no representative of the prosecution (according to one of the applicants, Dmitry Karelsky, this side was replaced by the court that, however, when considering cases of detention on the shares, the trial was based exclusively on the protocols drawn up by the police and did not take into account the testimony of the “prosperity” themselves, and the same The police themselves often did not call the meeting, especially in the Zamoskvoretsky court;
Art. 10 About the freedom of expression of opinion and Art. 11 About the freedom of assembly - in the form of overclocking people and subsequent detention and court
In addition, five of them complained of violation of Art. 5 About the right to freedom and personal integrity in the form of illegal detention.
Sergei Parkhomenko, the only one of the ten applicants on which two protocols were drawn up - about the “violation of the order” and “disobedience” - according to Elena Pershakova, who defended him in Russian courts, during the announcement of the verdict Parkhomenko stood at the court with his wife and son. Sergei and Peter Parkhomenko were grabbed from the crowd without warning and dragged into a car zakak. The protocol wrote that he had grabbed the police to uniform. At the same time, eyewitnesses reported that during the detention, Parkhomenko was beaten and grabbed by the throat, so he went from the ATS to remove beatings. In addition, he - as well as the other ten people who were in the same department - was accused of holding posters with the inscriptions "condemning an innocent abomination" and "in the face of the Lord." Parkhomenko had no poster, and a poster with such a text (of course, it was one phrase, and not two) had another person who, according to Pershakova, played in the Zamoskvoretsky court as a witness and tried to convince the judge that the poster was with him, and not for other people, but did not convince. Parkhomenko and the defender was informed about the meeting in the Moscow City Court (who left decisions on two fines) right on the day of consideration, when neither one nor the other was in Moscow.
Five of the ten applicants, after the arrest, were delivered to the Strogino police department, where, as Vasily Zharkoy recalls , many in the protocols wrote that they were delayed the same employees: “One of them has the surname of the villains, the other is generally female - ion.” According to Dmitry Karelsky, judging by the protocols, these were employees of the ATS, sergeant and warrant officer, while in reality he was delayed by sergeant and Major OMON, and the video of his detention fell on the air of Rain. This video was even shown in the Moscow City Court, but Irina Isyuk did not make impressions of Judge Irina: as Karelsky says, she “tried to demonstrate objectivity” and suggested that the employees indicated in the protocol also detained him, but at that moment that did not fall on the camera. As for the Zamoskvoretsky court, there the hearing of the case of Karelsky took ten minutes on the force.
“I went into the hall,” Karelsky recalls, “the judge (Lyudmila Moskalenko- OVD-info ) says:“ Well, tell. ” He began to tell - "Everything, enough, I understand." I submit petitions - “Well, submit, but I will reject it anyway. That's it, I retire to the meeting. ” When the judge retired, I ask the bailiff: “How do you like all this? Is this a court, or what? " He replies: "I have no right to discuss the actions of the authorities." And then he says: "Well, to be honest, I myself x*her."
According to Karelsky, no details were indicated in his resolution on the fine, so it remained unclear how to pay it. In the Moscow City Court, this was not noticed.
Vasily Zharkoy did not even have any consideration: “On this day they lied to us in the same Zamoskvoretsky court that there would be no meetings, the machine of justice failed or was just tired of accusing and we can all be free. The witnesses left, the lawyer, too, and we, almost all the detainees in the Strogino police department, went to receive a certificate that the meetings were transferred. It was already the fifth hour of stay in the court building. In general, they took us again with great. Inquiries were refused to give us, our affairs were found, and justice suddenly turned out to be around the corner. <...> I [Judge Moskalenko] called me to the hall as a witness to the defense of Albert (Sargsyanz- OVD-Info ) (we were simultaneously detained, that is, we were witnesses to each other). I went into the hall, and soon the judge retired to her tea room, after which she issued two identical decisions into which our names and data were driven with Albert. ”
Maxim Zamaraev (who also visited the Strogino police department) was among those whose business Mosgorsud sent for a new consideration. According to Kirill Koroteev, who represented his interests, Zamaraev “He was called at 12:00, came to the court at 11:15, and in the evening he was given a decision: here, they say, we examined you. He was registered in the book of visitors, and when the Moscow City Court requested the court of first instance, why the case was considered without his participation, Judge Natalya Susina gave a brilliant answer: “He was late, he was appointed at 11:00, we examined without him.” But the obligation of the turnout, where it was said that he should appear at 12:00, was in the Moscow City Court, so the judge Susin could not fake him. " However, considering the case the second time, the Zamoskvoretsky court again sentenced him to a fine, and this time the Moscow City Court recognized the decision legal. “In his case, one witness-police officer was questioned when considering the first appeal, and the second-in the court of first instance on a new consideration. But there was not a single court hearing in which both police officers would be interrogated in the same judge, ”Koroteev notes. As a result, the complaint of Maxim Zamaraev was filed in the ECHR separately, later complaints of the other nine people, but in the end they were communicated together. Less than two years have passed since the first complaint, Zamaraev’s complaint has been waiting only a year with a little. For the ECHR, this is a relatively short time. “We have things to have a decision since 2008,” Koroteev notes.
Now the Government of the Russian Federation will answer before October 6, 2016, in particular, to questions about:
Was there a gathering of the Zamoskvoretsky court with a public event from the point of view of Russian legislation;
Whether he was dispersed because of the proximity to the court building;
Was the applicants' rights to freedom of assembly were violated, and if so, was it legal and necessary;
What were the legal grounds for their detention;
Whether the court hearings were fair, independent and impartial, given that the judge played the role of the prosecution.
Complaints about the detention on February 24 and March 2 and subsequent courts were filed approximately at the same time, but there is no information about them yet.
30.12
On December 30, 2014, at least 255 people were detained on Manezhnaya Square, who went out to express a protest in connection with the verdict in the case of Alexei and Oleg Navalny. People were taken to 17 ATS. On many on that day, they made protocols about disobedience to the legal requirements of police officers, a lot of people were left in the police department for the night. The court sentenced many to fines, some to administrative arrests. In particular, Mikhail Krieger and a citizen of Ukraine Roman Nevchinsky, whose complaints Communitized the ECHR were arrested for 15 days. Oddly enough, according to the OVD-Info , protocols under Art. 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses were not compiled that day, despite the fact that by this time new amendments were adopted, tightening restrictions for participants in peaceful meetings and allowing not only to be fined for “violations of the order” for large amounts, but also to arrest for “conducting without notification”. These amendments were a kind of response to mass performances of the end of February-early March. And on December 30 it became the last to this day by the case of such a large -scale detentions in Moscow.
Five complaints were filed in the ECHR: the complaints of Krieger, Nevchinsky and Lev Ponomarev, fined a thousand rubles for the same “disobedience”, was prepared by the lawyer Karinna Moskalenko, the collective complaint of Alexander Shcherbakov and Dmitry Vinogradov, also fined a thousand rubles under the same article - Elena Pershakova. According to her, Shcherbakov and Vinogradov in the protocols wrote that they shouted the slogan “Freedom to Navalny”, although this was not the case. Shcherbakov told the OVD-Info that just before the detention with his wife and daughter approached the Manezhnaya, but when he saw the riot police, he turned to the side: "Akhtina riot police passed us, grabbing someone from time to time, and we walked calmly, and then some two policemen crap me under the hands and led me to the bus." The Tver court and the Moscow City Court, as usual, considered that the police submitted enough documents for the sentence. The complaint of Shcherbakov and Vinogradov was filed in October 2015, so the term that has passed since the submission to the communing was very small by the standards of the ECHR.
The complaints indicate violations of the same 5th , 6th , 10th and 11th articles as the detainees on February 21. The complaint of Krieger states that neither in the police department nor the court was allowed to be a lawyer, in the complaint of Nevchinsky - that the consul of Ukraine was not allowed to be admitted to him.
The government asked the government whether the applicants' rights to freedom of assembly were violated, and if so, whether it was legal and necessary, and whether there were measures proportional to violations and whether there were grounds for detentions. The ECHR is also interested in how fair and independent the court hearings were.