003-6003266-7691686

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 059 (2018)   13.02.2018   Journalist’s arrest at an anti-globalisation protest in St Petersburg   breached the European Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Butkevich v. Russia (application no. 5865/07) the   European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human   Rights,   two violations of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal) of the European   Convention, and   a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression).   The case concerned a journalist’s arrest during an “anti-globalisation” protest on 16 July 2006 in St   Petersburg. Taken to a local police station, he had administrative-offence proceedings brought   against him for disobeying a lawful order of the police. The case was examined in an expedited   procedure, and he was heard by a judge and convicted as charged the same evening. He was   sentenced to three days’ detention. On 18 July 2006 the appeal court reduced this sentence to two   days and ordered his release, with immediate effect.   The Court found in particular that neither the domestic courts nor the Russian Government had   justified Mr Butkevich’s arrest or a six-hour delay in releasing him on 18 July 2006. Furthermore, the   proceedings in which he had been convicted were in breach of the requirement of objective   impartiality on account of the lack of the prosecuting party at the court hearing on his case. Those   proceedings were also unfair because the police officers who had arrested him and produced the   pre-trial reports on which his conviction had been based were not questioned during that hearing.   Lastly, the Court found that the domestic decisions had not weighed in the balance Mr Butkevich’s   right to freedom of expression against the prevention of disorder, ignoring his argument that he had   been acting as a journalist and not examining adequately whether the demonstration had been   peaceful or not.   Principal facts   The applicant, Maksim Butkevich, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Kyiv.   Mr Butkevich, a journalist, was arrested during an “anti-globalisation” protest in the morning of   July 2006 in St Petersburg. According to him, he was arrested even though he had not been taking   part in the protest and had complied with a police order to switch off his camera.   He was then taken by force to a police station, where an offence report was drawn up. Charged with   the administrative offence of disobeying a lawful order of the police (under Article 19.3 of the Code   of Administrative Offences), he was brought before a judge the same evening. The judge heard   representations from Mr Butkevich, who pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer. The judge also granted   the defence’s request and examined a witness. No adverse witnesses or public officials were heard.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   Nor was there a prosecuting party in the case. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to three   days’ detention. In convicting him, the court essentially relied on the administrative-offence report   and the pre-trial reports drawn up by the police officers who had arrested him.   Following an appeal hearing on his case on 18 July 2006, his conviction was upheld but his sentence   reduced to two days, with immediate effect. The parties dispute the time of his release. The   Government submit that he served his sentence as amended on appeal and was released at 10 a.m..   Mr Butkevich claims that he was only released at 4 p.m., when the court order had reached the   detention facility.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), Mr Butkevich alleged that his arrest had been   unlawful and that there had been a six-hour delay in releasing him on 18 July 2006. Further relying   on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal), he alleged that the administrative-   offence proceedings had not been impartial and lacked procedural safeguards and guarantees.   Lastly, he complained under Article 10 (freedom of expression) that he had been arrested, detained   and convicted despite the fact that he had repeatedly told the police that he was a journalist. He   alleged that that had breached his freedom to cover a large event organised by the Government,   including the related protests.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 January 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Helena Jäderblom (Sweden), President,   Branko Lubarda (Serbia),   Luis López Guerra (Spain),   Helen Keller (Switzerland),   Dmitry Dedov (Russia),   Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra),   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   and also Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1 (arrest and delayed release)   The Court noted that under Russian law an administrative arrest had to be justified by “exceptional   circumstances” and/or by the necessity “for the prompt and proper examination of the   administrative case and to secure the enforcement of any penalty to be imposed”. However, neither   the domestic authorities nor the Russian Government had provided any justification for Mr   Butkevich’s arrest. Mr Butkevich’s arrest had not therefore complied with Russian law and had not   been lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1.   Furthermore, the Government had failed to provide a detailed report on Mr Butkevich’s   administrative detention and the time of his release. The Court therefore considered that he had   remained in detention until 4 p.m. on 18 July 2006, as submitted by Mr Butkevich. Yet his detention   had no longer been justifiable under Article 5 of the Convention after 10 a.m. on that day, the time   at which his sentence was deemed to have been fully served. There was no justification for this   six-hour delay in releasing him as there was nothing to suggest that there had been particular   difficulties to ensure his immediate release, as required by the appeal court.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.   Article 6 (objective impartiality and fairness of the administrative-offence proceedings)   The Court observed that it had already found a violation of the requirement of objective impartiality   under Article 6 § 1 in in the leading case of Karelin v. Russia on account of the lack of the prosecuting   party at court hearings at which administrative charges are determined. The Court saw no reason to   depart from that judgment in deciding on Mr Butkevich’s case where the factual and legal elements   were similar. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1 as concerned Mr Butkevich’s   complaint with regard to the lack of impartiality of the administrative-offence proceedings.   As concerned the complaint about the lack of procedural safeguards and guarantees, the Court   examined Mr Butkevich’s central argument about the use of the pre-trial reports produced by the   two arresting officers to convict him and the lack of an opportunity to question them. It went on to   find that there had been no good reason for those police officers’ absence from the trial, when their   adverse testimony had been decisive in his conviction. In particular, the officers had been at the   origin of the proceedings, belonged to the authority initiating the case and had been eyewitnesses to   Mr Butkevich’s alleged participation in an unlawful public event as well as his alleged refusal to   comply with a police order. His conviction had therefore been based on what amounted to untested   evidence. The questioning of one witness at Mr Butkevich’s trial had not been sufficient to   counterbalance such a shortcoming. Referring to previous similar cases concerning administrative   proceedings, the Court reiterated that it was indispensable for the Russian courts to use every   reasonable opportunity to verify incriminating statements by police officers who produced the main   adverse evidence which was then the foundation for convicting the defendant. There had therefore   been a further violation of Article 6 § 1 as regards Mr Butkevich’s right to a fair hearing.   Article 10 (freedom of expression)   Mr Butkevich’s arrest, prosecution and the sentence of administrative detention had amounted to   an “interference” with his freedom as a journalist to gather information on a public event and to   publish photographs. The Court was not satisfied that the reasons given by the national authorities   for such an interference had been sufficient to justify sentencing him to two days’ detention. The   domestic decisions had not assessed Mr Butkevich’s argument that he had been acting as a   journalist. Nor had there been any scrutiny of whether the demonstration had been peaceful or not.   Moreover, the court decisions had not balanced the interference with Mr Butkevich’s freedom of   expression against a legitimate aim such as preventing disorder, if indeed he had taken part as a   demonstrator in an unlawful event, as claimed by the authorities and the Government. The Court   therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 10.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court held that Russia was to pay Mr Butkevich 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage, and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter   @ECHRpress.   Press contacts   [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Patrick Lannin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 44 18)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4