Communicated on 19 December 2013

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 76695/11 Sergey Stanislavovich UDALTSOV against lodged on 14 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sergey Stanislavovich Udaltsov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in . He is represented before the Court by Ms V. Volkova, Mr N. Polozov and Ms K. Moskalenko, lawyers practising in Moscow.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a Russian political activist and leader of the Left Front.

1. Domestic proceedings

(a) Case no. 1 On 13 October 2011 peace justice B. convicted the applicant of an unspecified administrative offence and sentenced him to ten days of detention. Later on, judge K. of the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the conviction. On 13 October 2011 the applicant was taken to an administrative detention facility and went on hunger strike. On 16 October 2011 he was admitted to a civil hospital. Being discharged on 19 October 2011, he left the hospital. On 21 October 2011 the applicant was arrested at his home and taken to Moscow administrative detention facility no. 1, where he served the remainder of his earlier sentence of ten days of detention. On 21 October 2011 the head officer of the detention facility charged the applicant with an offence under Article 20.25 of the Code of Administrative Offences (CAO), which punishes an unauthorised departure from an administrative detention facility. On the same day, the administrative 2 UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS offence file was submitted to the peace justice who examined it on 10 December 2011 (see “Case no. 3” below).

(b) Case no. 2 In the meantime, on 4 December 2011, the day of the Russian parliamentary elections, the applicant was arrested and conveyed to the Kitay-gorod police station. Apparently, he was accused of crossing a road in a non-authorised place. The applicant was then taken before peace justice B. Allegedly, the applicant’s lawyer (whose name is not specified) was not admitted to the courthouse. The judge refused to adjourn and convicted the applicant of disobeying a lawful order by a public official. The applicant was sentenced to five days of administrative detention and was taken to the administrative detention facility. He went on hunger strike, depriving himself of both food and water. On 5 December 2011 judge K. of the District Court upheld the judgment of the peace justice. On 7 December 2011 the applicant was admitted to hospital. In the applicant’s submission, after his admission to hospital he was deemed “released” and thus should have been able to leave the hospital when he saw it appropriate. However, he was guarded by convoy officers and other officers in plain clothes. Allegedly, he could not communicate freely with his next of kin nor communicate confidentially with his counsel. On 9 December 2011 the applicant’s term of detention expired and he expressed his wish to leave the hospital. Apparently, he intended to take part in a large public gathering on 10 December 2011. However, the hospital staff decided that the applicant should be admitted to the intensive care unit. So, the applicant was compelled to remain in the hospital. The applicant was also subjected to a psychiatric examination.

(c) Case no. 3 On 10 December 2011 the applicant was discharged from the hospital and was taken before peace justice Be. on the accusation of leaving the hospital without permission on 19 October 2011 (see “Case no. 1” above). Allegedly, the court bailiff prevented the applicant’s lawyers from entering the courthouse. On the same evening, justice Be. convicted the applicant of leaving a detention facility without permission on 19 October 2011. The judge sentenced the applicant to fifteen days of administrative detention. On the same day, the applicant was taken to the Zyuzinskiy District Court of Moscow for appeal proceedings. However, these proceedings were adjourned on account of the applicant’s state of health. The applicant was admitted to hospital. In the applicant’s submission, after his admission to hospital he was deemed “released” and thus should have been able to leave the hospital when he saw it appropriate. However, he was guarded by convoy officers and other officers in plain clothes. Allegedly, he could not communicate freely with his next of kin nor communicate confidentially with his counsel. On 12 December 2011 the District Court, having noted the applicant’s absence and having heard his lawyer, upheld the judgment. UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS 3

From 16 to 19 December 2011 the applicant was kept in a civil hospital. The applicant’s term of detention was to expire on 25 December 2011. However, the applicant was not released. Instead, he was taken to a court in relation to another case (see below).

(d) Case no. 4 On 25 December 2011 the applicant was taken before peace justice B. The applicant was accused of having resisted a lawful order by a police officer in the following circumstances. According to the authorities, several people had decided to hold on 24 October 2011 a static demonstration (пикетирование) in front of the Central Electoral Committee (CEC) in Moscow. This demonstration was aimed at protesting against violations of electoral rights. The Moscow authorities had suggested another venue. On 24 October 2011 the applicant, among others, had been in front of the CEC, calling passersby to join the demonstration. A police officer had told him not to obstruct the car traffic since the applicant (and others) had been in the middle of the road. The applicant had resisted. According to the applicant, on 24 October 2011 he had been in front of the CEC for a solitary static demonstration (одиночное пикетирование) and had been arrested and taken, without any explanation, to a police station. Apparently, after some time in the police station the applicant was left free to leave. Between 24 October and 25 December 2011 no proceedings had been pending, as regards the applicant or judicial review of any administrative decision relating to the above static demonstration. On 25 December 2011 peace justice B. convicted the applicant of disobeying a lawful order by a public official and sentenced him to ten days of administrative detention. On 7 January 2012 the District Court held a hearing in order to examine the appeals lodged by the applicant’s lawyers. The judge afforded fifteen minutes to the applicant’s new lawyer, Ms Moskalenko, to study the file. On the same day, the District Court upheld the judgment of 25 December 2011. On an unspecified date in January 2012 the applicant was released.

2. Hunger strike in December 2011 It follows from the documents submitted by the applicant that on several occasions between 4 and 19 December 2011 the applicant was examined by emergency doctors and was periodically taken to hospital. He underwent various medical tests and accepted drips to stave off complete dehydration. It transpires that, at least twice, he refused to continue in-patient treatment.

3. Proceedings before the Court On 14 December 2011 Ms Volkova sent a fax to the Court, requesting application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court in respect of the applicant. She also submitted by fax an application form on behalf of the applicant and authority forms in respect of herself and Mr Polozov. On 19 December 2011 Ms Volkova sent another fax, enclosing supporting documents in relation to her earlier request under Rule 39. In June 2012 the Court received a letter from Ms Moskalenko, enclosing an authority form signed by the applicant. 4 UDALTSOV v. RUSSIA – STATEMENT OF FACTS AND QUESTIONS

On 22 August 2012 the Court requested the applicant’s lead counsel (Ms Volkova) to submit the original paper version the application form and authority forms. Receiving n