SpasiPiter.ru

 

| VIOLENCE

| CITY DEFENDING ACTIONS

-

 

Free counters!

! || || || || || ||

- !

olga-andronova.livejournal.com
olga-andronova.blogspot.ru

, , .
,



, . , 2:6 , 22:12, 22:12.


| ""


| ...

. "" ..

.

.


COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Conseil de l'Europe - Council of Europe
Strasbourg, France - ,

REQUETE
APPLICATION

prEsentEe en application de l'article 34 de la Convention europEenne des Droits de l'Homme,
ainsi que des articles 45 et 47 du Reglement de la Cour

under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights
and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court

34
45 47

I. LES PARTIES

THE PARTIES

A. LE REQUERANT / LA REQUERANTE

THE APPLICANT

(Renseignements A fournir concernant le / la requErant(e) et son / sa reprEsentant(e) Eventuel(le))

(Fill in the following details of the applicant and the representative, if any)

( , )

1. Nom de famille / Surname / Davydov_____________________

2. PrEnom (s) / First name (s) / () Andrey Vladimirovitch____

Sexe: masculin / feminine Sex: male / female : /

3. NationalitE / Nationality / The Russian Federation (RF)__________

4. Profession /Occupation/ _______________________________________

5. Date et lieu de naissance / Date and place of birth /

6. Domicile /Permanent address/

St-Petersburg __________________________________________

7. Tel. N / +_________________________________

8. Adresse actuelle (si diffErente de 6.) Present address (if different from 6.) / ( . 6) _____________________________

9. Nom et prEnom du / de la reprEsentant(e) Name of representative* / * - Napara Elizaveta Petrovna ___________________________________

10. Profession du / de la reprEsentant(e) / Occupation of the representative / the juridical consultant___________________________________

11. Adresse du / de la reprEsentant(e) / ____________________

12. Tel. N/ Fax N /

1. Nom de famille / Surname / Eremeyev_____________________

2. PrEnom (s) / First name (s) / () Pavel Andreevitch_________

Sexe: masculin / feminine Sex: male / female : /

3. NationalitE / Nationality / The Russian Federation (RF)__________

4. Profession /Occupation/ ______________

5. Date et lieu de naissance / Date and place of birth /

6. Domicile /Permanent address/

St-Petersburg, ________________________________

7. Tel. N / +7 _________________________________

8. Adresse actuelle (si diffErente de 6.) Present address (if different from 6.) / ( . 6) ____________________________

9. Nom et prEnom du / de la reprEsentant(e) Name of representative* / * - Napara Elizaveta Petrovna ___________________________________

10. Profession du / de la reprEsentant(e) / Occupation of the representative / the juridical consultant___________________________________

11. Adresse du / de la reprEsentant(e) / ____________________

12. Tel. N/ Fax N /

B. LA HAUTE PARTIE CONTRACTANTE

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES

(Indiquer ci-apres le nom de l'Etat / des Etats contre le(s) quel(s) la requEte est dirigEe)

(Fill in the name of the State(s) against which the application is directed)

( , )

13. The Russian Federation (RF)

II. EXPOSE DES FAITS

THE STATEMENT OF FACTS

(Voir chapitre II de la note explicative)

(See section II of the Directive)

14. On the 6th of December 2006 the President of RF decided to appoint Mrs. Matvienko V.I. to the post of the Governor of St-Petersburg (hereinafter referred to as St-Pb).

In 2010 results of Matvienkos Governmental activities were evaluated by the Ministry of the regional development of the RF in the Report about evaluation of efficiency of executive authorities activities within RF regions (http://www.minregion.ru/upload/02_dtp/100827_doklad.pdf).

The efficiency of executive authorities activities within RF regions was evaluated within the following spheres: economic growth, the populations income, health protection, education, housing and public services (HPS) and residential construction, the road economy, the security of citizens and organization of public administration.

The most lowly estimated spheres for St-Pb were health protection and the HPS. During one year 28% of incomplete structural facilities turned to 78%. The rating included 83 positions, standing for RF regions, and St-Pb occupied position 68 within Economics and State Management; position 78 within Health protection and Populations health; position 67 within Residential construction and the HPS; between positions 40 and 60 (see Annex #50) within Education.

The protest actions against Mrs. Matvienko V.I. were taking place since the year of 2007. Currently the European Court of Human Rights is considering the case about bashing of citizens during one of such actions, when thousands of citizens blocked the central road of the city, the Nevsky prospect. During the years of 2010-2011 the actions were taking place almost daily (See Annexes 53 and 54).

The citizens of St-Pb were contesting the laws, passed by the Governor Mrs. Matvienko V.I., in Courts, and finally the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation declared the main city laws were invalid as the Governor Mrs. Matvienko had falsified the order of their adoption (namely: three laws about construction), and one law about cleaning of the city was annuled, as well. The citizens of St-Pb collected signatures against Matvienko, asking the President of RF to resign her from the occupied post and demanding to initiate a criminal case on the basis of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

In 2010 citizens of St-Pb started to collect signatures for resignation of Mrs. Matvienko in a web-site and during pickets in the city streets. When the President of RF announced that he wasnt going to extend Mrs. Matvienkos Governorship, about 40 thousands signatures had been collected already.

The Investigation Committee of RF decided to initiate the investigation in the relation of Mrs. Matvienko V.I.

At this, the Governor Mrs. Matvienko was giving interviews, assuring that she was going to stay at her post till the end of 2011 at least, and the party The United Russia announced their intent to nominate Mrs. Matvienko to the third Governmental rule term.

14.1. On 18th of May 2011 the Leader of the political party The Fair Russia Mr. Smirnov S.M. was recalled from the post of the RF Legislative Assembly representative in the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of RF on suggestion of the party The United Russia of the Legislative Assembly of St-Pb. And consequently, Mr. Mironov lost his post of the Chairman of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of RF.

On 17th of June 2011 the Municipal Council of the Petrovsky region issued decision 696, according to which three deputies of The United Russia party resigned on their own will. Two of them later nominated themselves together with the Governor Mrs. Matvienko.

On 26th of June 2011 three deputies of the party The United Russia of the Municipal Council of the region Krasnenkaya Rechka refused their mandates on their own will.

On 21st of July 2011 the Ministry of Finance of RF has issued an Order 86 About approval of the order of data provision by a state (municipal) unit, the order of its placement in the official site in the Internet and the Administration of this site. However, this Order was published in the federal issue of the Russian Gazette (5610: http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/19/gos-sayt-dok.html) only three months later, on 19th of October 2011.

On 9th of August 2011 the Deputy of the State Election Committee (SEC) of St-Pb Krasnyansky D.A. claimed that about a year before that the City Election Committee (Gorizbircom) proposed to force the municipal Electing Committees to publish the data about forth-coming elections in the Internet (the State Automated System "Vybory" (Election)). He mentioned that according to this proposal the electoral campaign shouldnt have started until the data was published in the Internet. According to his words, the case with the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka and the MU Petrovsky werent the first cases when the community of St-Petersburg just didnt know about appointment of a municipal election. See Annex 1.

This means the SEC of St-Pb just had no infromation about the order of the Ministry of Finance of RF, dated 21.07.2011.

14.2. On 24th of June 2011 the President of RF Mr. Medvedev D.A. announced that he wasnt going to reassign Mrs. Matvienko V.I. for the next Governmental rule term, and approved the offer of the Governors of Bashkortostan and Chechnya to nominate the Governor of St-Pb Mrs. Matvienko V.I. to to the Speakers post in the Federal Council (See Annex 2).

14.3. On 24th of June 2011 Mrs. Matvienko informed the Mass Media that she had heard the Presidents proposal on TV and was going to consider it. On 27th of June 2011 Matvienko announced that she has requested a meeting with the President of RF Medvedev D.A. to discuss her future career.

On 28th of June 2011 the Governor of St-Pb Mrs. Matvienko met the President of RF and discussed his proposal to take to the Speakers post in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of RF (See Annex 3). On the same day Mrs. Matvienko agreed to take this post. (See Annex 4).

14.4. The First Applicant is the Chairman of the Regional department of the All-Russian public youth organization Young specialists of Russia . When he learnt that the post of the representative of St-Pb in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of RF is vacant, he considered the possibility to nominate to it.

After Mrs. Matvienko agreed to the Presidents proposal to head the Upper Chamber of Parliament, the Second Applicant contacted the First Applicant and asked him to compete with Mrs. Matvienko during the coming election, intended to promote her to the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of RF.

The Second Applicant announced that as the Head of the State had expressed his position in the open, it should have guided St-Petersburg, being a region of RF, to action, as authorities of St-Pb were likely to do their best to fulfill the Presidents wish. On the Second Applicants opinion, free and fair elections couldnt be held in that case. At the same time the Second Applicant wanted the First Applicant to take the Speakers post in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of RF, as he considered him worthy of the post in contradiction to Mrs. Matvienko.

14.5. At the same time, according to the legislation of RF a person, wishing to nominate to the Federation Council, requires a mandate of the representative or the legislative authority of the RF region. During the interview Mrs. Matvienko announced that she was going to nominate to some intercity Municipal Council. At this she indicated that the choice of a Municipal Council was unimportant (See Annex 5).

14.6. The subject of the appointment of Mrs. Matvienko to the post of the third person in the State affected the entire Russian State. The Mass Media tried to guess to which Municipal Council Mrs. Matvienko was going to be nominated. The leading members of the party The United Russia let slip the information about the MU Poselok Aleksandrovskaya and the MU Lomonosov. (See Annex6).

Confirming this information the Deputies of Municipal Councils within these regions started to resign one by one, providing the basis for appointment of additional elections to Municipal Councils, their structures being non-legitimate, thus.

When resigning, the Deputy of the Municipal Council of the MU Poselok Aleksandrovskaya explained that she had resigned from the Deputy post in favor of the Governor Mrs. Matvienko (See Annex 7).

14.7. Despite wide discussion of Mrs. Matvienkos new post, no precise data about the place of her nomination was announced, so the First Applicant sent an inquiry to the Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of RF Mrs. Dmitrieva O.G., who headed the political party Fair Russia in St-Pb. He asked her to direct official inquiries to all Municipal Units of the city. The First Applicant asked for information about legitimacy of these formations, about recent resignation of the municipal deputies, about additional elections, if appointed, and the time of their holding, if appointed (See Annex 8).

14.8. On the 5th of July 2011 the Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of RF Mrs. Dmitrieva signed these inquiries to all intercity Municipal Units, asking to provide data about elections, appointed or not. In these inquires Mrs. Dmitrieva asked requested to answer within the time-limits, allowing the candidates to nominate for participation in the coming elections (See Annex 9).

14.9. Being the member of the Fair Russia party, the First Applicant personally delivered one of such deputy inquiries to the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region).

Thus, on 6th of July 2011 the First Applicant arrived to the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and questioned the Secretary of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) Mrs. Pismennaya M.S. and other employees of the MU about possible elections. Here are the questions asked by the First Applicant:

1. Have any of the Deputies resigned recently? The answer was No, meaning the Municipal Council was legitimate;

2. Has the election to the MU been appointed? - The answer was No;

3. Where is the Electing Committee? the answer was that the Committee was currently not acting and all of its members were on vacation;

The First Applicant saw no signs of the coming elections, no data about it was in the stands, and no newspapers with a published decision were there. That is why the Applicant transferred the Deputys inquiry and left.

The First Applicant arrived in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) on the 12th of July 2011 to get an official answer. In premises of the Municipal unit the First Applicant met a woman, who didnt introduce herself, though she announced that no election was going on or was planned in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region). The First Applicant didnt manage to get any further, as the woman told him there was nobody there within the premises of the Municipal Council.

14.10. On 31st of July 2011 the Mass Media informed the citizens that Mrs. Matvienko V.I. had been registered as a nominee to the Deputies of Municipal Councils from the political party The United Russia to two Municipal Units: the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River). Mrs. Matvienko announced this information herself during an interview (See Annex 10). When asked how come nobody knew anything about the forthcoming elections in these regions, Mrs. Matvienko said she got the information from the newspaper herself.

14.11. Right after the message that Mrs. Matvienko was going to nominate in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) it was announced that the candidate registration period was to expire on the 27th of July 2011.

The Mass Media distributed data about other candidates but Mrs. Matvienko. According to Mass Media, representatives of various political groups had nominated to the posts (See Annex 11).

The Data Agency BaltInfo asked the Head of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) Mr. Morozov R.M. for information, who replied that he had no information about it, as he was on vacation. This was not true, as Mr. Morozov had resigned about a month before that (on 26th of June 2011) to ensure Mrs. Matvienko could have nominated to his post.

However, no information about lists of nominees was placed in the site of the State Electing Committee of St-Pb, nor there was information about the election to Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River).

However, the Mass Media began to report differently, when the Heads of political parties had officially announced that the nominees to these elections either had resigned from the parties or had never been their members. It was confirmed later that almost all nominees but Mrs. Matvienko didnt represent any political movements but had nominated on their own, independently. Even some members of the party The United Russia nominated to these elections, in particular Mr. Bogatushin A.I., who was the Ombudsman before and after the election.

In the interview the Deputy of the Head of the SEC of St-Pb Mr. Krasnyansky D.V. mentioned that till 28th of June 2011 the Electing Committee had not information about the forthcoming additional elections in Municipal Units Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region). Mr. Krasnyansky indicated that concealing information from the Senior Electing Committee infringed the principle of publicity of Electing Committees and the legislation of St-Pb, (See Annex, article 69). He also announced that he had personally questioned representatives of both Electing Committees of Municipal Formations (ECMF) about the reasons of dereliction of their duty to timely inform the SEC of St-Pb. According to Mr. Krasnyansky, the representatives of the ECMF couldnt send notifications to the Electing Committee, as post offices were closed on the planned day of sending (See Annex 1).

14.12. On the 1st of August 2011 the Chairman of the Electing Committee the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) Mr. Ponomarev S.V. sent his reply to the inquiry of Mrs. Dmitrieva to the party Fair Russia. In this reply he explained that the additional election was appointed for the date of 21st of August 2011 as some Deputies had resigned from their posts. According to this reply, the Electing Committee of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) had made its decision to appoint such an election. (See Annex 13).

Citizens have a right to elect or be elected, and they can get the information about the forthcoming elections from newspapers and electronic Mass Media (the official sites). No official data was published in all-city newspapers. No data was given in the official site www.gov.spb.ru, though data about all other elections was regularly placed there.

The MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) is located in the Kirovsky district of St-Petersburg. The Municipal Council (the Administration) of this district issues a newspaper Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), where all official data about forthcoming elections is published, in particular: decisions of the Municipal Council about resignation of its members, about appointment of additional elections, about appointment of persons authorized to organize the elections, about the number of signatures to be collected by a nominee, as well as about the schedule of the Electing Committee operation. The Municipal Administration places the issues of the newspaper Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) in the site www.redriver.ru. Earlier the data about elections and texts of this newspaper had been placed in the site www.redriver.ru within the time limits, established by the legislation of RF.

Before elections of Mrs. Matvienko the access to the site www.redriver.ru was ceased by the administrator of the servicing firm Caesar + on the request of the owner, which was the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River). At this 50% of shares of the firm Caesar +, supporting the site www.redriver.ru, are owned by the Deputy of the party The United Russia of this exact MU - the Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), Mr. Bogatushin Anton Igorevitch, who had been a general director since 19th of November 2007 (the shareholder of 10 000 from 21st of October 2003 and the shareholder of 5 000 since 20th of September 2006. So, Mr. Bogatushin has sent an order to stop the access to the site to himself (See Annex 14, 15).

The only issue of the newspaper has been discovered in the central library of the Kirovsky district, whereas no more earlier or later issues of the newspaper Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) seemed to be stored there, though the site is regularly attended by residents of this region. See Annex 16.

The Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb issues a newspaper Narvskaya Zastava (The Narvskaya Gateway). In June and July of 2011 this newspaper didnt provide any information about the appointment of additional elections, maps of territories explaining what citizens can vote during the elections or lists of buildings in these territories. During the previous elections this data was published in advance, two months before the elections, as it was required by the legislation of RF. See Annex 17.

The MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) is located in the territory of the Petrogradsky district of St-Petersburg.

The Administration of the district issues a newspaper Petrovsky okrug (The Petrovsky district), which is published in the site www.petrovskiokrug.ru/gazeta. During the previous election the data about it was published in the newspaper and in the site according to the time limits, established by the legislation of RF. As it can be seen from saved copies in the Russian searching system Yandex on 26th of July 2011 issues 10 and 11 of the newspaper Petrovsky okrug (The Petrovsky district) werent published in the site www.petrovskiokrug.ru/gazeta. At this issue 10 dated 30.06.2011 (announcing the elections) was placed in the site on 28th of July 2011 at 23:38:58, which means it was created after the registration of nominees had finished, 21 minutes before the day of 29th of July 2011 began.

At this, issue 11 of the newspaper Petrovsky okrug (The Petrovsky district) was published and placed in the site a week before that, on 20th of July 2011 at 23:44:50, see Annexes 18 and 19.

At this, if the above-mentioned order of the Ministry of Finance of RF 86, dated 21st of July 2011, was already valid, the cease of access to the official sites of Municipal Units would have been acknowledged as illegal.

14.13. Then it was reported that on 28th of July 2011 the Petrogradsky district Court of St-Pb (to location of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region)) had received an application from Mrs. Sikoeva L.K. about protection of her suffrage. Mrs. Sikoeva indicated that the Electing Committee of the Municipal formation (hereinafter ECMF) Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) had infringed the principle of publicity of the election process. Her grounds were that the ECMF failed its legislatively established obligation to preliminary publish the of data about appointment of additional elections in a municipal printed publication. Case 2-3720/2011.

Mrs. Sikoeva is an official in this city district, as she works on the municipal order of the MU the Chkalovskoye district.

Thus, the official Mrs. Sikoeva had sent her inquiry about issue 10 of the newspaper Petrovsky okrug (The Petrovsky district) a day before it was published in the site.

This claim was considered the next day, on 29th of July 2011. The representative of the ECMF provided issues of the municipal newspaper to the Court, which stated that the Municipal Council decided to appoint additional elections. The ECMF also invited a witness, who confirmed that she had seen this newspaper.

At the same time the Mass Media identified the witness and questioned her. The lady indicated that she had seen the newspapers, informing about elections in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River). At the same time she couldnt tell what newspaper it had been, and when it had happened (See Annex 56). There were no other witnesses, and nobody else announced that they had known about the forthcoming elections until the registration of nominees to Deputies of Municipal Councils was ceased.

Basing on these statements, the Court rejected the application of Mrs. Sikoeva (See Annex 20), and thus, according to the Russian legislation, other citizens had no possibility to complain about violation of the publicity principle. At this, Mrs. Sikoeva didnt attend the Court session, as officially she was on vacation. Mrs. Sikoeva didnt appeal about the Court decision.

14.14. On 3rd of August 2011 a similar case took place in the Kirovsky district of St-Pb (at location of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River)). The Court received an application from Mrs. Mashutikova G.V., the citizen of that district. During consideration of this case, 2-4045/2011, the representative of the ECMF of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) provided the proof about the newspaper Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River). This was the same representative of the ECMF, who had represented the interests of the ECMF of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region)) in the case, described above. Basing on the proof provided, the case was rejected on 8th of August 2011 (See Annex 21).

The newspaper of the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb Narvskaya Zastava (The Narvskaya Gateway) wasnt supplied to this Court session. The Court didnt consider the absence of data about the additional elections appointment, reformation of electing territories and maps of territories, whose citizens had a right to participate in the election, in the newspaper Narvskaya Zastava (The Narvskaya Gateway).

Mrs. Mashutikova didnt appeal for the Courts decision.

14.15. At 11th of August 2011 it became clear that after the Presidents speech in June 2011 about the nominee to the post of the Head of the Upper Chamber of the Parliament the Municipal Units have taken certain actions.

14.15.1. Thus, till the end of June 2011 three Deputies of Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) have resigned, namely Mr. Matyushin V.A., Mr. Subbotin M.V. and Mr. Tarasov V.A. All of them were the members of The United Russia party.

During the registration of nominees the same persons from the Municipal Council entered - Matyushin V.A. and Subbotin M.V.

According to results of the election two deputy mandates of three were won by Matyushin V.A. and Subbotin M.V., who returned to their posts after a short resignation.

14.15.2. The situation was similar in the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), where four members of The United Russia party, namely: Mr. Morozov R.M., Mr. Ivanov A.S., Mr. Alexeev S.A. and Mr. Bogatushin A.I. The latter applied for a post, from which he had resigned right after the registration procedure had begun.

According to the election results, two Deputy mandates of three were won by Mr. Bogatushin, who had left his post before, as well as his colleague in the political party The United Russia Mr. Cherepanov M.S.

The Deputy of the party The United Russia Ivanov A.S. had to resign his mandate as he had committed a criminal offence. He and his comrade beat up a family of migrants with a child and burnt their car.

14.15.3. As Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) were non-legitimate, on 27th of June 2011 the ECMF of these municipal districts decided to establish additional elections to the Municipal Councils for the date of 21st of August 2011. See Annexes 22 and 23.

14.16. The site of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) in the Internet was inaccessible during the period of the election, starting from the ECMF making its decision till the date of voting. At this the site is supported by the OOO (LLC) Caesar +, owned by the Deputy of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) Mr. Bogatushin. He is the General Director since 19.11.2007, the shareholder of 10000 since 21.10.2003, and the shareholder of 5000 since 20.09.2006.

The graphic copy of the municipal newspaper issued on 27th of June 2011, containing the ECMFs decision about the additional elections appointment, appeared in the site of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) (according to the data of the .pdf file) on 28th of July 2011 at 23: 38. See Annex 19.

At the same time the Courts of the Petrogradsky and the Kirovsky districts of St-Petersburg had made their decisions on the cases of publicity principle observation on 29th of July 2011, making their appellation impossible.

14.16. On 11th of August 2011 an agitation meeting took place in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, devoted to the forthcoming elections to the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River).

The electronic Media Fontanka.ru received a message about this meeting by fax. The company sent its employee Mrs. Garmazhapova A. She arrived to the Administrative office to take part in the meeting. During the meeting the correspondent was recording the discussion by means of a Dictaphone (See Annexes 24 and 25).

During this meeting the representatives of the District Administration provided agitating materials to the commercial representatives of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb and insisted that these materials should be distributed via commercial enterprises of the district.

The agitation was aimed to support the only registered participant of the forthcoming election, namely Mrs. Matvienko. No other nominees participated in this meeting.

The meeting was headed by Chief Executives of the district level, in particular the Head of the District Administration and the Chief specialist of the social protection of citizens department of the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb.

Representatives of the political party The United Russia took no part in the meeting, so the agitation took place only on the part of the executives of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb.

After this meeting the correspondent used the obtained data in her article, published by the electronic Media Fontanka.ru for common use in the Internet network. The article was published on 11th of August 2011, and remained there from 7 to 9 p.m. Many informational agencies of Russia managed to copy it and place it in their sites. After that the text about illegal agitation, containing names of authoritative persons, was removed from the site, and the correspondent Garmazhapova A. was pressingly requested to resign by Mr. Konstantinov A., the owner and the Head of this Media.

After resignation the correspondent provided the data, obtained during the meeting in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb on 11th of August 2011, to the Second Applicant.

14.16. On 12th of August 2011 the First Applicant decided to attend Municipal Councils of Municipal Units, where Mrs. Matvienko had nominated. Having had explained the impossibility to do so during the official nomination, he was going to submit a declaration of his candidacy to the Elections on 21st of August 2011.

The First applicant informed the Second Applicant about his decision, which was approved by the latter.

14.17. Firstly, the First Applicant went to the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region). Approximately at 4 p.m. the First Applicant together with the correspondent of the newspaper Computer-Inform arrived to the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and addressed a woman, who identified her as a representative of the Council. He asked her to accept his documents, confirming his agreement for nomination (the declaration of consent). The woman refused to do so and explained that the period of candidate nomination had expired on 27th of July 2011.

For some time the First Applicant insisted that his documents were registered, or that he was given a written refusal. After that the Chairman of the Municipal Council ordered the Secretary to register his inquiry in the book of the incoming correspondence. However, when the Secretary started the registration procedure, several policemen entered the room, including Khudiyev Suleiman Suleimanovitch, the Public Security Police Deputy of the Head of the ROIA (regional office of internal affairs) of the Petrogradsky district of St-Pb. The policemen approached the First Applicant and demanded that he followed them to the police department. When asked for the detention grounds, the First Applicant heard that an inquiry has arrived.

The correspondent, recording the situation since the First Applicants arrival to the Municipal Council (See Annex 26), was threatened with arrest in case she wouldnt switch her camera off, and then the correspondents Smartphone, used for recording, was forced from her. The correspondent managed to snatch her Smartphone out, run away from the policemen and to place her record in the Internet.

The First Applicant arrived in police department 18, where he spent over 4 hours. During this time he witnessed the Secretary of the Municipal Council Melnikova E.S., who was summoned by the police and wrote a claim that the First Applicant has broken peace in the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) (See Annex 27). Several hours after the arrest the First Applicant was released, though the office of the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) was already closed by then, and he couldnt try and register as a nominee once again. The First Applicant Mr. Davydov A.V. was released without any documents.

When Mr. Davydov was staying in the police department #18 of the DIA (Department of Internal Affairs) for about an hour, the lawyer Dmitry Merskushev was called. Because of traffic jams, typical for the Friday evening, the lawyer arrived only one and a half hours later.

Mr. Davydov was released in two hours after arrival of his lawyer Mr. Merkushev. Total time of his detention was over 4 hours.

The citizens, shocked by his detention over 4 hours, called the police department many times, and they called the Chief department of Internal Affairs of St-Petersburg, too. By the phone the policemen informed the citizens that Mr. Davydov was arrested in accordance with the article 20.2 of the Administrative code for the disorderly conduct, for which he could have been arrested for 15 days.

Some of the citizens witnessed about this case in writing (namely Mrs. Andronova and Mrs. Dryakchlova), though the case was rejected by the Court. See Annexes 49 and 50.

After the Governor Mrs. Matvienko announced on 31st of July 2011 that the elections would take place on 21st of August 2011, the citizens acted to prevent falsification of the election process. They held meetings and send appeals to the Prosecution office of St-Pb.

14.18. On 19th of August 2011 the First Applicant addressed the Court of the Petrogradsky district of St-Pb with an application about protection of the election law. In his application he complained about actions of authoritative representatives of the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region), as they had refused to register him as a candidate for Deputy, and as they had intentively concealed the information about forthcoming electiosn since the Deputies of the Municipal Council had pretermly resigned. See Annex #28.

14.19. According to the Courts decision of the Petrogradsky district, issued on 20th of August 2011, all applied demands of the First Applicant were rejected, excluding the demand about the publicity principle infringement by actions of the ECMF, whereas the latter hadnt published the data about the forthcoming elections in the municipal newspaper Petrovsky okrug (The Petrovsky district). See Annex #29.

However, the Court ceased this case, as well, referring to a prejudicial force of a Court decision about a similar case, which had taken place on 29th of July 2011. See Annex #30.

14.20. On 25th of August 2011 the First Applicant directed a cassation appeal to the Judicial Board of Civil cases of St-Pb, complaining that the Court had decided to reject his application (See Annex 31), and a private appeal about the Court deciding to cease the case partially (See Annex 32).

14.21. On 13th of October 2011 the Judicial Board of Civil cases of the City Court in St-Pb confirmed both Decisions of the Petrogradsky district court of St-Pb, dated 20.08.2011.

Despite the fact that the Court is obliged to send its decisions to participants of the argument, the Court hasnt fulfilled this obligation yet. Due to this, the First Applicant is trying to obtain the Court decision, though he hasnt succeeded yet. The decision of the second instance Court will be sent to the Court as soon as the First Applicant manages to obtain it.

14.22. On 21st of August 2011 the elections to the Municipal Council of the MU Petrovsky okrug (The Petrovsky district) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) took place. The situation was similar in both Municipal Units.

14.22.1. Journalists, correspondents and ordinary observers were turned out from the site on formal grounds such as It is not allowed to sit here or It is prohibited to stand there. This information was obtained from Mass Media representatives later. See Annex #33.

14.22.2. Premises of the ECMF and the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region), as well as the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) were closed for those wanting to complain. The Central SEC of St-Pb didnt work on that day. (According to the evidence of the Deputy Mr. Kchripak Anatoly, the Electing Committee of St-Pb was directed not to accept appeals. This also was confirmed by citizens and video-records). When the citizens, the Second Applicant among them (as he was a voter in the elections at the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River)), tried to submit their appeals to the Chairman of the electing site, the Chairman simply left the electing site. See Annex 34.

So, it was impossible to appeal about violations during the election process, though according to the RF legislation such complains should be considered immediately on the day of elections.

Thus, the Second Applicant and an independent Media representative addressed the Chief Department of Internal affairs of St-Petersburg by telephone. The policemen arrived, one of them a colonel, listened to the appeal and stated that they werent authorized to register the violations during the election process. They recommended the citizens to address the Electing Committee of the site. As it was already mentioned, these Committees were closed and didnt register any appeals. See Annex #35.

14.22.3. The status of the official observer over the election process, calculation of votes and other activities of the ECMF during the election period, as well as control over the election results, could only be granted to persons, established by a registered candidate or an electoral formation, who had nominated a registered candidate.

As no information had been provided about the forthcoming elections, not a single political party, except the party The United Russia, nor any public formation managed to nominate their canditates, so nobody observed the process of votes calculation.

None of the registered candidates appointed an observer, so all organizational and executive activities during the election process have been concealed from the public.

14.23. According to the results of the election the representative of the Central Elective Committee of St-Pb has resumed that the record-breaking number of citizens have attended it.

14.23.1. At these the election process resulted in the following:

During the election in the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) all three mandates were shared by representatives of the party The United Russia:

Mrs. Matvienko Valentina 2593 votes, 93.71% from total votes;

Mr. Matyushin Vyacheslav 1556 votes, 56.23% from total votes;

Mr. Subbotin Michail 1578 votes, 57.03% from total votes.

As it has been mentioned before, Mr. Matyushin and Mr. Subbotin were nominated to the same posts before they had resigned in June 2011.

14.23.2. In the election for the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) all three mandates were shared by representatives of the party The United Russia:

Mr. Bogatushin Anton 1495 votes, 36.89% from total votes;

Mrs. Matvienko Valentina 3830 votes, 94.50% from total votes;

Mr. Cherepanov Michail 1446 votes, 35.68% from total votes.

As it has been mentioned before, Mr. Bogatushin was nominated for the same post until he resigned in June 2011.

14.24. On 22nd of August 2011 Mrs. Matvienko was elected as a Deputy of the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), so she sent the President a resignation inquiry. On the same day Mrs. Matvienko was resigned from the Governorship of St-Pb. Thus, during the entire electing process Mrs. Matvienko remained a Head of the Executive Body of the RF region St-Petersburg.

14.25. On 21st of September 2011 Mrs. Matvienko was appointed to the Speakers post in the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of RF. 140 senators voted for her, one senator abstained, but none voted against Mrs. Matvienko.

The Right-Protecting Council of St-Pb has sent open letters to the Federation Council asking not to appoint Mrs. Matvienko to the post of the Speaker, as the Courts were still considering the cases regarding her election to Municipal Councils. See Annex #36.

14.26. On 11th of October 2011 the vice-prosecutor of the Prosecution office of the Petrogradsky district of the SE of the PD of St-Pb refused to satisfy the First Applicants demand to start a criminal case regarding the illegal violation of the personal security right and his suffrage. See Annex #37.

14.27. On 13th of October 2011 the Decree about the refusal to start a criminal case dated 11th of Oct. 2011 was cancelled as baseless by the Order of the Head of the SE in Petrogradsky district of St-Pb. The implemented inspection was acknowledged to be incomplete. See Annex #38.

14.28. On 10th of November 2011 the vice-prosecutor of the Prosecution department of the Petrogradsky district of the SPA SE of RF in St-Pb again rejected the First Applicants claim for initiation of a criminal case, basing on the data of additional inspection. See Annex #39.

14.29. As the Second Applicant considered that the publicity principle, infringed by the ECMF of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), consequently influenced his right for free election of his favorable candidate, on 15th of September 2011 the Second Applicant addressed the Court of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb with a claim for protection of his suffrage. See Annex #40.

The Second Applicant understood that it was perspectiveless to complain about the publicity principle violation by the ECMF, as it hadnt distributed the municipal newspaper Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), informing the citizens about the coming elections. His knowledge based on the case when the Court of the Petrogradsky district of St-Pb considered the claim of the First Applicant. By this reason the Second Applicant has used other basics for his claim, than non-distribution of the newspaper Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River).

14.30. On the 5th of October 2011 the Court of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb ceased the case, initiated on the claim of the Second Applicant, referring to the fact that some decisions of prejudicial importance for the case in question had been made by the Court before. In particular, the Court referred to the decision dated 8th of August 2011 for rejection of Mrs. Mashutikovas appeal. See Annex #41.

14.31. On 3rd of October 2011 the Second Applicant submitted a private appeal for the Courts decision of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, dated 05.10.2011. See Annex #42.

14.32. On 31st of October 2011 the Cassation instance of the city court of St-Pb confirmed the Courts decision of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, dated 5th of October 2011. See Annex #43.

14.33. On 11th of November 2011 the Second Applicant addressed the Court of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb with his claim for protection of suffrage, basing it on the fact that the Administration of the Kirovsky district and its executives had infringed his right for free and fair election, as on 11th of August 2011 the agitation meeting in favor of Mrs. Matvienko had taken place. See Annex #44.

14.34. As in the Courts opinion the claim of the Second Applicant contained several procedural irregularities, the Court of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb left the claim discontinued on 14th of October 2011 (See Annex 45). At this the Second Applicant was asked to eliminate the discovered irregularities till 31st of October 2011.

14.35. On 19th of October 2011 the Second Applicant submitted his corrected application to the Court of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, attaching the proof, hoping that this time the Courts requirements were fulfilled. See Annex #46.

14.36. The Court of the Kirovsky District of St-Pb returned the application to the Second Applicant on 1st of November 2011, informing him that he had corrected only two irregularities of the four discovered by the Court of the Kirovsky District of St-Pb on 14th of October 2011. See Annex #47.

14.37. On 7th of November 2011 the Second Applicant sent a private appeal to the Judicial Board, complaining about the Kirovsky Court and its decision, dated 1st of November 2011. See Annex #48.

III. EXPOSE DE LA OU DES VIOLATION(S) DE LA CONVENTION ET/ OU DES PROTOCOLES ALLEGUEE(S), AINSI QUE DES ARGUMENTS A LAPPUI

EXPLANATION OF INFRINGEMENTS OF THE CONVENTION OR ITS PROTOCOLS, NOTICED BY THE APPLICANT, AND THE CONFIRMING ARGUMENTS

() , , () /

(Voir 19 () de la notice)

(See 19 (c) of the Notes)

(. 19 () )

15. The Applicants suppose that the Russian Federation has infringed their right for free election, which should ensure free will expression by the population at the election of legislative authorities.

Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as Convention) says:

The High Contradicting Parties are obliged to implement free elections by means of secret voting on a reasonable regularity basis in the conditions, aiding the free will expression of the population at election of the legislative authorities.

a Were the elections to the Municipal Council of the incity Municipal Unit of St-Petersburg, held on 21st of August 2011, the elections for the legislative authorities?

15.1. According to the European Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the Court), stated in the Directive of the European Court, paragraph 53, about the case Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt versus Belgium, dated 02.03.1987, Series A, N 113, p. 23, article 3 of the protocol N 1, attached to the Convention, has to do only with elections of the legislative authorities, however, these statements should be interpreted in relation to the constitutional arrangement of the State considered.

Within the limits of this application the Applicants suppose their right for free election to the executive authority has been infringed as the order of the election to the incity Municipal Councils handt been observed.

At compilation of this claim the Applicants took the position of the Court into account, according to which the authorities of self-government, including Municipal Councils of local importance, are not considered to be the legislative authorities (The Partial Decision on acceptability of appeal N 51501/99, submitted by Mr. Cherepkov Viktor against the Russian Federation).

At the same time the Applicants ask the Court to consider the legal views, stated in the Decision regarding acceptability of appeal N 60983/00 "Nikolai Zhermal versus the Russian Federation".

In the above-mentioned case the Court was defining the election status of the Head of the Legislative Authority of the RF, and defined the Upper Chamber of the Parliament of the RF.

So, the Court stated that according to articles 94 and 95 of the Constitution of RF the legislative powers lay within the Federal Assembly of RF, which contains two chambers: the State Duma and the Federal Council. The laws, accepted by the State Duma, are submitted for approval to the Federal Council, which approves or declines them (the Constitution of RF, article 105). Taking this into account, the Court considers the Federal Council also to be a legislative authority, according to the data of article 3 of Protocol 1 to the Convention.

At this, the essence of appeal N 60983/00 Nikolai Zhermal versus the Russian Federation had to do with more than just violation of the right to elect the members of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of RF, it also was connected with election of the Head of the Executive authority of the State power in a region of RF.

However, the assessment of the Federal Council status, made by the Court, basing on the Constitution of RF, seems to be adequate within the limits of the argument in question, as well, as the functions of this authority of State power havent changed since consideration of the case Nikolai Zhermal versus the Russian Federation.

At the same time the order of formation of the Upper Chamber of the Parliament has changed only after the Federal Law N 113-FZ came in force on 5th of August 2000, About the Order of Formation of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation".

Thus, the rules of the new legislation deprived citizens of their right to elect the Heads of regional executive authorities and derived these powers to the sphere of Federal Authorities, and also the procedure of election to the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

According to the third abstract of article 1 of the Federal Law, dated 5th of August 2005, About the Order of Formation of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation": The Candidate for election (appointment) as a representative in the Federal Council should be a citizen of the Russian Federation, who is a Deputy of the Legislative (Representative) Authority of the State Power in the region of the Russian Federation, or the Deputy of a Municipal formation, located in the territory of the Russian Federation, whose authorities of State Powers elects (appoints) this person to be a member of the Federal Council.

Consequently, the citizens of RF do not have a right for direct election of members of the Federal Council.

At the same time during consideration of the case Nikolai Zhermal versus the Russian Federation direct election of the Federal Council members wasnt provided for, as well. However, the Head of the Executive Regional Authority, elected during a popular election, automatically became the person, authorized to represent the region at the Parliament. Differently speaking, election of a Governor ensures election of the Federal Council Member.

After approval of the Federal law N113-FZ on 5th of August 2000 "About the Order of Formation of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation" no warranties remained, as citizens could now choose only from the Deputies of the Legislative Regional Authorities, Representative Authorities of Municipal Formations, which would later enter the Federal Council.

However, this is the only way for the citizens to affect the body of the Upper Chamber of the Parliament. According to the Russian legislation the citizens can only limit the choice of authoritative representatives, made by the State. The range of potential Deputies of the Federal Council can be limited to representatives, chosen during elections to the Legislative Regional Authorities or Representative Authorities of Municipal Formations.

15.2. As in May 2011 the representative of St-Petersburg Mr. Mironov S.M. resigned, to the Speakers post in the Upper Chamber of the Parliament, as well as the post of the representative of the Region of RF, as he acted as such, became vacant.

It is necessary to consider the position of chief executives of the State, who in the open discussed the possible candidates to this high post. When addressing the Courts for protection of their rights, the Applicants directed that the chief executives in no way should forecast the peoples will regarding the body of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

When the Speakers post had vacant, the citizens of St-Petersburg expressed their opinion regarding the persons, whom they would like to see in the body of the Federal Council (during the election to the Legislative assemble of St-Pt and the election to the incity Municipal Councils).

However, the President of RF was negotiating with authoritative representatives, including the Governmental body of the RF regions, which indicated that the Presidents attitude to the aspect of the Speaker in the Federal Council was radically different from the peoples will.

Further, during an open meeting the President offered the Speakers post to a candidate, selected by himself, the Governor Mrs. Matvienko. After negotiation with the President Mrs. Matvienko agreed to occupy the offered high position, meaning she accepted the Presidents offer.

After Mrs. Matvienko has announced her decision, it was necessary to define if the Governor of St-Pb, who had no post on the Legislative Assemble of St-Pb or the Municipal Council, could take the post of the city representative in the Federal Council, According to the given abstract three of article 1 of the Federal law N113-FZ on 5th of August 2000 "About the Order of Formation of the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation", the Head of the Executive Regional Authority of RF couldnt enter the Upper Chamber of the Parliament.

The representatives of the Legislative Assembly of St-Pb and the Governor Mrs. Matvienko herself indicated that it was necessary for Mrs. Matvienko to be elected to the Municipal Council from any incity municipal district.

At this the Governor has announced that the place of election didnt matter, in fact. According to Mrs. Matvienkos opinion time was the main factor, so the sooner the Elections to the Municipal Council would be established, the better.

However, it was a long time before the regular elections, so the possibility of additional elections to the Municipal Councils was being considered.

Finally, the Governor chose to participate in the additional elections to the Municipal units the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River). Mrs. Matvienko has become the Deputy from the latter region later.

Taking into account the direct connection between election into the Representative Authorities of the Municipal Council and formation of the Federal Council, as well as rapidity of appointment of Mrs. Matvienko to the post of the member of the Upper Chamber, the Applicants consider that the election to the Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) were at the same time a way of the Federal Council formation (which, according to the essence of Article 3 of Protocol N1 to the Convention, is the Legislative authority).

Moreover, the Applicants position that the elections to the Representative Authority of Self-Government should be treated in accordance with statements of article 3 of protocol N1 to the Convention is most trustworthy based on the case of elections to the Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), which were artificially established only for promotion of the person, selected by the President of RF to the Federal Council.

b Were the elections free, did the conditions of the elections provide for free will expression by the population?

15.3. Unless the principle of equality of the electing right is observed, fair election is impossible.

Observation of this principle is based on the state power authorities and the authorities of self-government being neutral regarding the candidate nomination, the electing campaign and calculation of the election results.

At the same time during the election to the Municipal Units of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) the State wasnt neutral towards the election process. After the President of RF proposed to appoint Mrs. Matvienko to to the Speakers post in the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly and till the announcement of the election results the State represented by various authorities and Municipal Units did everything to prevent any results of the election, unexpected and unwanted by the State itself.

As a result, the States introduction prevented the First Applicant from nomination to the Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River). In his turn, the Second Applicant had no opportunity of choosing a candidate, as the State hadnt fulfilled its obligation to provide equal access to the procedure of nomination, which in its turn didnt provide a satisfactory choice of candidates.

The State has interfered into the election process in the following way:

15.3.1. As the Court indicated it in the Decree about the case Tanase versus Moldova (N 7/08), in a democratic state the function of the parliament members, in particular, the members of opposing parties, is to represent the voters by provision of answerability of the acting government and assessment of its politics.

At this the President of RF has rather full powers in relation to the Government of RF, he has a right to appoint the Chairman of the RF Government after approval by the State Duma, to chair the meetings of the Government of RF, to assign and resign deputies of the Chairman of the Government of RF and federal ministers.

At the same time the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of RF is authorized to approve some of the Presidents Decrees, to appoint his election and to resign him.

Thus, the people can control the activities of the Government of RF and the President of RF by means of the Federal Council in case the process of the Upper Chamber of the Parliament formation is absolutely independent from the will of the President.

However, as it was already mentioned, the President of RF has expressed his position in the case described in a rather precise way. Moreover, except the interviews with various Mass Media representatives the position of the executive authorities in the place of the election organization, the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, is rather remarkable.

During the meeting on 11th of August 2011 (issue 14.16 in the Facts section), representatives of the executive authority have made the following statements about the forthcoming elections:

The Head of the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb announced the following: The Governor of St-Petersburg Valentina Matvienko, if she wishes [to be chosen to the Council of the] Federation [needs to get a place in a Municipal Council]. All of you watch TV and read newspapers. She has nominated herself not from St-Petersburg, I mean, not from the entire city, but we have tucked out this lucky ticket. Remember that we will have our candidate in the Federation council. It is natural that there will be some preferences for the citizens The main problem, delaying the successful development of the district is the lack of financial support. With the support of the federal region we will be able to solve some problems, so our main strategic goal is to ensure an easy election campaign, to ensure full attendance. It will be quite a laugh if not many [citizens] would attend, in fact, the Governmental elections. We should somehow get the people interested in the election .

The specialist of the social protection of population department of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb stated the following: Let us not just say I have called him, I have told him, lets WORK with people, persuade them, do our best. Moscow has set us a complicated mission. Everyone should place his or her vote, Im going to check it at lunch-time. At 12 noon I will call the Electing Committee and check it surname by surname, to see who has voted. [Addressing the Blind Association] Give me the list of the entire association, these are not Survivors of the Blockade or veterans, there is a whole bunch of those in the center, but you are only 20 persons, so each of you should vote. He asked me, when I am going to have a vacation, and the Chief says I am going only after the 4th of December .

Here and after the monologues of representatives of the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb are decoded from the audio-records of the meeting in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district which took place on the 11th of August 2011.

The complicated mission, set up by Moscow, mentioned by authoritative representatives during the meeting on 11th of August 2011, gives evidence that the initiative of the President of RF, spoken out during interview with various Mass Media, wasnt a consequentless opinion expression (if it is acceptable that the President of RF expresses his official position in front of the country population), but was a precise guide for action for the entire State.

Differently speaking, the Federal Government provided a direct order about the procedure and the results of the election to the Municipal Council. Of course, there is no speaking about free election here.

Considering the case "The Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others versus the Russian Federation" (appeals N 55066/00 and 55638/00), the Court has assessed guidelines of several documents of the European Union, in particular, the Code of conduct for elections: the Guidelines regarding elections and principles of the explaning report.

The statements of the Code of conduct for elections: the Guidelines regarding elections, applicable to the matter, are:

I. The principles of European electoral heritage

The five principles underlying Europe's electoral heritage are universal, equal, free, secret and direct suffrage. Furthermore, elections must be held at regular intervals.

3.1. Freedom of voters to form an opinion

a. State authorities must observe their duty of neutrality. In particular, this concerns:

i. media;

ii. billposting;

iii. the right to demonstrate;

iv. funding of parties and candidates.

c. Sanctions must be imposed in the case of breaches of duty of neutrality and voters' freedom to form an opinion.

The Guidelines of the Explanatory report state the following:

3. The right for the free vote

26. The free vote involves two different aspects: free formation of the voters opinion and free expression of this opinion, which stands for a procedure of free voting and precise estimation of results.

3.1. The freedom of ones opinion formation

a. The voters freedom to form their opinion partially meets the equality of possibilities. It is necessary that the State, and the executive authorities in general remained neutral, especially in the respect of the Mass Media, use of means of visual agitation, rights to establish demonstrations in public area and funding of parties and candidates.

b. There are also some positive obligations, imposed on the State executive authorities. They should ensure participation of candidates, nominated on the legal basis, in the election.

Nomination of certain candidates can be prohibited only under exclusive circumstances, when it is required by more important public interests. The State authorities should also let the voters learn about lists of parties and candidates, participating in the election, in particular by means of the appropriate allocation of means of visual agitation.....

The agitating meeting in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb excellently attested violation of the States fairness principle during election on 21st of August 2011, which according to the European Union legal position, also shared by the Court, is considered to be an interference into the voters right for their free selection, as it negatively influences the voters freedom of the opinion formation. At the same time the freedom of the opinion formation is an obligatory condition for realization of the free voting right.

15.3.2. In accordance with p. 2, art. 40 of the Federal law dated 12.06.2002 N 67-FZ (edited on 27.07.2010) "About Basic Warranties of Electoral Rights and the Right to participate in the Referendum for citizens of the Russian Federation" (approved by the SD of the FA of RF on 22.05.2002): Registered candidates, working as state or municipal employees, or employed by organizations related to the Mass Media, are resigned from their official or employment duties and should submit the verified copies of the appropriate orders (decrees) not later than in five days after the date of registration. The legislation of the RF region may state that at election to a representative authority of a municipal formation at certain amount of voters in the voting district (not more than five thousand persons) the registered candidates, employed by the State, may keep their employment duties.

The given statement of the Russian Law ensures the principle of the fair election as the registered candidates, working as state or municipal employees, or employed by Mass Media sector, are resigned from their job duties and therefore have no possibility to use their duty status to affect the election results.

Since registration as a candidate to Deputies of Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) the Governor Mrs. Matvienko hasnt resigned her job duties either temporarily, nor permanently. Differently speaking, she was the Head of the Executive Regional Authority of RF, and she had the executive authorities of this region of RF of district importance under her command. In particular, she had the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb under her command. For this reason the illegal agitation meeting, supporting Mrs. Matvienko and the serious task, set up by Moscow in an executive authority of St-Pb of district importance can be considered as use of the duty status by the Head of the Executive Authority of St-Pb.

As the Governor hasnt resigned from her Governmental duties before the elections to the Municipal Council and even a day after the election confirms that the State has infringed the principle of noninterference into the process of the will expression by the population.

15.3.3. According to the solution made on 29th of November 2007 about acceptability of appeals NN 10547/07, 34049/07 The Party "Jaunie Demokrati" and the Party "Musu Zeme" versus Latvia, the Court required to define the gravity of the violation of the noninterference principle by the State. Unless it is done, the Court explains, it is impossible to consider the matter of deformation of the peoples will because of the violation of this principle.

Thus, to define how the presence of the serious task set up by Moscow for the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb has influenced the peoples will, or how it was influenced by the winning candidate, remaining at her post till the end of the election, it is necessary to consider the meeting, held on 11th of November 2011.

The meeting in question took place in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb. The Administration invited representatives of trading enterprises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, and the meeting was also attended by representatives of various public unions, working in the territory of the municipal formation.

The most demonstrative speeches of the authoritative representatives with certain comments are given below, full text can be found in Annex 45, which contains decoded audio-records of the meeting (See Annex 45).

The Head of the Administration of the Kirovsky district said: It is necessary to ensure the maximal possible attendance. It will be quite funny if the election of the Government, actually, will be badly attended. We have to interest the citizens somehow. We can organize many events The shops Maxim Dom and Continent can take part in the advertisement campaign. Lets call everyone who can fund these events. Of course, it is not that expensive, but you must understand that you will get everything back. What are your proposals? On our side we promise to support you, if you organize such an event.

This confirms that all events, planned for the day of the election, announced by the representatives of the District Administration, were only intended to attract people to the election of the Governor, namely Mrs. Matvienko. Differently speaking, Mrs. Matvienko was considered as the only important candidate as she had kept her post as a Head of the Executive Body. She wasnt just a nominee among others, she was a Governor of St-Pb, whose winning in the election should have been assisted as much as possible, as after her nomination the district has won the lucky ticket.

Besides, the given statements confirm that the executive authority of the district importance has bribed the commercial representatives. The shops MaxiDom and Continent can take part in the advertisement campaign. Lets call everyone who can fund these events. Of course, it is not that expensive, but you must understand that you will get everything back. What are your proposals? On our side we promise to support you, if you organize such an event.

What can it mean, you will get everything back, what kind of support is promised to commercial enterprises by the Head of the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, if they hear out the authoritative representative and start agitating people? The kind of such support is not really important, as the support and preferences from the part of the Executive Body during the pre-election campaign are incompatible with the principle of the State being neutral.

In general, everybody is going to vote for Mrs. Matvienko. I have called the members of our organization, and everybody promised to come this was a report of one of the public organizations representative, provided to the Head of the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb. If such reports take place during a secret meeting in the Public Administration and of the Administration holds such obviously illegal reports with the help of representatives of district public organizations, the results of such reports should be published as it is established in the article 46 of the Federal law, dated 12.06.2002 N 67-FZ "About Basic Warranties of Electoral Rights and the Right of Citizens of RF to Participate in the Referendum". It is obvious that the Administration requires this information to control the accomplishment of the serious task set up by Moscow.

Our department is going to check your work. Ask your personnel departments to send us the list of employees, with their names and surnames, and the home address. We will check the ones residenting in the Kirovsky district by ourselves. Please, organize us a meeting with these people in your premises .

We consider that compilation of lists of people, who potentially can vote for a party or a candidate, unwanted by the State, confirms the States interference into the will formation of the voters. According to the Applicants opinion such interference rather significantly districts the peoples will.

The Head of the Executive Body of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb has mentioned the representatives of the opposing party, promoted during the meeting:: You must know the attitude to The Fair Russia, Mr. Mironov and Mrs. Dmitrieva they use trashy PR and baseless critics, so it is possible that they can be distributing some provocative documentation in your premises, in Maxidom or Continent or somewhere else, including the documents blacking the Governor. It would be great to stop such actions immediately. In case you notice something of the kind, contact us immediately, this is the task set up by the Administration of the Internal Affairs. In case you find any of such documents in your premises, burn it, destroy it, and immediately address us!

Violation of the lawful right for contragitation, agitation against all candidates, as well as agitation for the political organization, opposing the leading party confirms the general violation of the principles of equality, freedom and fairness in the held elections.

This violation is extremely serious and obviously affects the will expression of the population.

The specialist of the social protection of the population department of the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb said: Mrs. Matvienko is nominating in two regions, the Petrovsky region in the Petrogradsky district, and the Krasnenkaya Rechka in the Kirovsky district. Of course, it is an honour for us and there is a serious competition ahead. Though, there is Makarovka there. There are three thousand of students there, they will come on a stand to! command and vote as required.

On the command stand to! the students of the Military Space Academy named after Mozhaisky were brought, as the Academy is located within the limits of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region). As the representative of the executive authority of the district importance announced this data during the agitation meeting, though citizens of St-Petersburg have known it for a long time, the Applicants consider it possible to define this circumstance as the act of forcing of the election with participation of Mrs. Matvienko by the Executive Body. At the same time, the influence on three thousands of students of the Military Academy of Mozhaisky must have significantly changed the results of election to the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region).

Another meaningful expression of the authrotitative representative is they will vote as required. Taking the context into account, it is obvious that in the representatives opinion voting for Mrs. Matvienko is as required. So, the authoritative representative has informed the visitors of the meeting for whom they are required to vote.

The administrative employee explained: Our aim is to call as many people as possible, so that they come and vote. It is obvious that no one is voting for some abstract Mr. Ivanov, everybody will come to vote for Mrs. Matvienko. But we have to decide how to organize people so that they come.

After the report of a representative of one of public organizations, present in the meeting, who said I am calling all our people the Administration employee answered I dont need you just to call. I need results. I need to know in advance that on the day of the election, say, five hundred, well, one hundred of voters arrive. Everybody mainly works with district Chairmen, and everybody knows I am going to call them a dozen times. My husband is unpleased, as I am talking by the phone all the day long through the night. I am calling people five times a day, asking in the morning if anything have changed and making sure in the evening that they are still going to come... Hurry up with the list of citizens, who are going to come, I should ask to thank them somehow for the job. It is my position that people should be thanked in any way.

The Administration representative mentioned that active agitators will be prized: We will be giving food packages, but only to the ones, who has shown true results of his or her job.

The representative of the public organizations said: Yes, they came, they said that my family (the family of the collector) is sure to come and vote.

The given abstracts demonstrate bribing of voters. It was planned to thank people for agitation, for voting, for helping the Administration to promote Mrs. Matvienko into the Federal Council.

We provide the lists of our jurisdictional employees for every election, the ones who live in a certain region. These people are controlled, people who live or work in the region, must come and vote.

This phrase, once again, confirms that the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb has its ways of influence on employees and can oblige them vote for a certain candidate.

I need lists of your sick people from you. These people securely vote as required. Eduard Markovitch, I know you are going to leave, so organize the ones, who stay, in any possible way. Treat them well. For example, Mr. Grachev is married, so make him bring his wife to the election, as well. Lets tell people that, say, flyers for 10% discount will be distributed in Maxidom from this hour till this hour. I will call you and tell you the list of events. How shall we do it? Lets appoint a person on duty for every region. The person on duty will meat his 10 persons with tickets. And you will be sure that your work wasnt in vain, that we have fulfilled our Governmental task, wont you? Arent we working here? If somebody doesnt want to work, we shall reelect them. We have so many kids of war, some of them cant walk, so well have to bring the ballot box to their place, and obviously, they are not alone at home, and if we are allowed, thus we get two persons already. So give me the lists for bed patients, I will control it.

In this abstract possible penalties for the lack of activity at agitation of colleagues and friends for Mrs. Matvienko are mentioned.

If somebody doesnt want to work, we shall reelect them - it is important that this threat was addressed to representatives of public organizations such as The Blockage Survivors Association, The Blind Association etc., so it can be supposed that the threat of disestablishment is very effective for dealing with such groups of the population.

In the end of the meeting the authoritative representative started to discuss the date of the next meeting, so it can be supposed that meetings of that kind took place in the Executive Body of the Kirovsky district not once.

All the above-given information explains the degree and manner of interference of the Executive Power to the process of municipal elections. Both are too serious for the election to the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), but rather reasonable for the consequent election to the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

Thus, the Applicants consider that the interference into the electoral process were sufficient and could interfere within the populations will.

15.3.4. The Code of conduct for elections: Guidelines, part 3.2, issue xiii defines the components of the free will expression and states the following:

The calculation of the votes should be obvious, supervisors, candidates representatives and Mass Media representatives are allowed to stay during calculation of votes. These persons should also have access to all records.

At the same time, as it was mentioned in the issue 14.22.1. of the Facts section, the Mass Media representatives, and the Second Applicant among them, couldnt supervise the election process.

No candidates, unwanted by the election organizers, were present in the election, data about the election and the expiration date of the registration period was being concealed, the registered candidates didnt appoint any observers. This is why control over calculation of votes and keeping of documents by the Electing Committee was unavailable for citizens, and this is why the Mass Media representatives were not allowed to give coverage to these events.

15.3.5. One of the underlying principles of the common European experience in the sphere of election is the university of the suffrage.

Explaining the idea of university, the European Union emphasizes the quality of compilation of voters lists. See issue 7 of section 1.2 of the Code of conduct for election, where the following is stated The proper maintenance of voter lists is vitally important to ensure the university of the suffrage

To provide reliable information in voter lists, the following conditions should be observed:

i. lists of voters should be permanent;

ii. they should be updated on a regular basis, at least, once a year, so that the municipal (local) power authorities have a habit of updating these lists at the same time every year. In places where voters are not automatically registered, it is necessary to ensure registration of voters during a long period of time;

iii. voter lists should be published. The final variant of the list should be sent to the higher authority and controlled with a neutral authority, responsible for application of the electoral law;

iv. there should be an administrative procedure, controlled by a Juridical Body, or a juridical procedure, permitting the voters, not included into voter lists, to register. In some countries it may be stated that registration in the additional list is ceased in, for example, 15 days before the election or even on the day of election. Though the latter is quite a liberate solution, the decision about registration in the voter list is inevitably made by the Court, who would have to hold a meeting on the day of the election. Such a procedure is not really fit for satisfaction of organizational requirements, which are the basis of working democracy. Anyway, the electoral sites should not register voters on the day of the election;

v. Moreover, voter lists can be not very accurate, as some voters are unreasonably registered in these lists, and some of the voters are not. There should be a procedure, similar to the one mentioned above, which would allow the voters to correct the wrong records. The range of voters, authorized to do such corrections, may be limited to people, residenting in the territory of the electoral region in question, or to people, registered within a certain electoral site;

vi. it is possible to ensure registration of people, who have changed the place of their residence, or who have reached the age after the latest update of the voter list, in the additional list.

When considering the case "The Georgian Labour Party versus Georgia (Appeal N 9103/04), the Court considered the degree of importance of appropriate keeping of voter lists for description of fairness of the election. This parameter was considered to be a preliminary condition of a fair election.

On the Courts opinion, defects at compilation of voter lists not only violate the voters rights, but also diminish the candidates chances to take part in equal and fair election.

The election to the Municipal Council, described in this Application were additional, as the regular election had already taken place before.

To ensure trustworthy reflection of the region citizens opinion the RF legislation requires that similar numbers of voters should take part in the election for every Deputy mandate. At this changing of the content and borders of the voting region is allowed only during regular elections. Otherwise the ratio of votes would change, which would in turn make the distribution of votes according to mandates, from which the Deputies have resigned, impossible.

In the Russian Federation there is no special procedure of registration of new voters in additional lists, recommended in sub-issue vi of issue 7 of section 1.2 of the Code of conduct. That is why appearance of voters, who have acquired the suffrage after the regular elections have been held, doesnt lead to recalculation of number of voters per one Deputy mandate.

Moreover, the principle of equal suffrage, according to issue 2.2 of the Code of conduct, defines the importance of observance of the equality of electoral rights: places should be equally divided by electoral regions.

i. This rule should at least be observed for elections to Lower Chambers of Parliament, as well as for regional and local elections;

ii. The given statement means accurate and balanced distribution of places among electoral regions on the basis of one of the following criteria: number of residents in a certain region, number of citizens in the region (including the underage), number of registered voters and, maybe, number of actually voting residents. The combination of these criteria may be used;

iii. It is possible to take geographic criteria into account, as well as administrative and even historical borders;

iv. the possible deviation should stay within the limits of 10 15% maximum, excluding special cases (protection of interests of a compact residential minority, elections in an administrative unit with the low population density);

v. to ensure equal suffrage the places should be redistributed, at least, once in 10 years, and it is advisable not to it during the elections;

vi. in case of multi-mandate electoral regions it is recommended to distribute places without revision of the borders of electoral sites (which normally match the administrative borders);

vii. revision of the borders of electoral regions, which in this case should be one-mandate, must be carried out in compliance with the following requirements:

- unprejudiced;

- without prejudice to the interests of national minorities;

- taking into account the opinion of the Committee, whose members are mostly independent; it is recommended that this Committee included a geographer, a sociologist and a balanced number of political parties representatives, and, if necessary, representatives of national minorities."

The content of the electoral region, where the election to the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) took place, has been changed since the regular election to the Municipal Council, which took place earlier.

The voter lists were updated and included the residents of some high-rise apartment buildings, and the number of persons with active suffrage can come to 15% from the total number of voters and 20% of the total number of the ones, who took part in the election.

According to sub-issue ) of issue 4 of article 18 of the Federal law, dated 12.06.2002, N 67-FZ "About Basic Warranties of Electoral Rights and the Right to participate in the Referendum for citizens of the Russian Federation", at formation of multi-mandate electoral regions the rough equality of the voters per one Deputy mandate is observed. Deviation of the number of voters in a multi-mandate electoral region from the average electoral quotient, multiplied by the number of Deputy mandates in this region, may not exceed 10 % of the average electoral quotient.

The inclusion of voters from several houses to the voter list of the earlier existing electoral region must obviously have led to deviation of the voters number from the average electoral quotient, multiplied by the number of Deputy mandates in this region. At this the quantity of Deputy mandates and the borders of the region have remained the same.

It is obvious that the precondition of the fair election hasnt been fulfilled, and in Applicants opinion, this election didnt represent the will of the population correctly.

15.3.6. The Code of Conduct for Election of the European Union states that it is necessary to observe the equality of possibilities of the electoral process participants.

The States interference into the electoral process became possible firstly because the Russian legislation doesnt provide sufficient guarantees of the election publicity.

It is obvious that the election publicity since the date of the election appointment till the date when the results are announced is the necessary condition of equal possibilities of the electoral process participants, who should have an equal right for realization of their passive suffrage (meaning nominate as a candidate), be free in casting votes and forming their own opinion.

Applicable conditions of the Russian legislation

. The Federal Law dated 12.06.2002 . N 67-FZ "About Basic Warranties of Electoral Rights and the Right to participate in the Referendum for citizens of the Russian Federation"

Part 6 of article 20.

The system and status of electoral Committees

The Committees inform the voters about time and order of electoral activities, about the course of the electoral campaign, as well as about candidates, electoral unions nominating candidates and lists of candidates;

Article 44.

Informational support for elections and referendums

The informational support for elections and referendums includes: information of voters, preelection agitation and aids deliberate will expression by citizens and the publicity of elections ;

Part 1 of article 47.

The Mass Media (radio and TV, and periodical printed publications) used for informational support of the election

The informational support of the election at a certain level is ensured by attraction of state, municipal and non-governmental Mass Media organizations (such as radio, TV, editorial offices of state, municipal and non-governmental periodical printed publications;

Part 2 of article 45.

Content of data materials, placed in the Mass Media sources or distributed otherwise should be objective, true and may not infringe the equality of candidates or electoral unions;

Parts 1 and 2 of article 30.

Publicity in activities of Committees

1. All meetings of the Committees, as well as the procedure of votes calculation, and procession of voter lists by the site and territorial commissions, as well as procession of bulletins, absentee ballots, and protocols of the election results may be attended by members of the higher ranked Committees or their employees; a candidate, registered by this commission, or his agent; an authorized representative or an agent of an electoral unit, for which this or the higher ranked Committee has registered the list of candidates, or a candidate from this list; a member or an authorized representative of an initiative group, holding a referendum. The listed persons dont need an additional permission. The Committee should ensure information of these persons and to grant them free access to the Committee meetings and premises, where the votes are calculated , the mentioned electoral documentation is processed, . All Committee meetings, procedures of electoral documentation procession and vote calculation may be attended by the Mass Media representatives.

2. Decisions of Commissions, indirectly connected to preparation and implementation of elections, are to be published in state or municipal periodical printed publications or are to be brought to the attention of voters and referendum participants otherwise, and are also submitted to other Mass Media means according to the legislative requirements.

. The Law of St-Pb, dated 14.11.2008. N 681-118 "About election of Deputies of Municipal Councils of Incity Municipal Formations of St-Petersburg" (contains statements about municipal elections, which are specific in relation to the Federal Law, dated 12.06.2002 N 67-FZ "About Basic Warranties of Electoral Rights and the Right to participate in the Referendum for citizens of the Russian Federation")

Part 2 of article 18.

Publicity in activities of electoral Committees

Decisions of electoral Committees directly connected to preparation and implementation of elections are to be published in state or municipal periodical printed publications or are to be brought to the attention of voters and referendum participants otherwise, and are also submitted to other Mass Media means at least in 10 days after such decision have been made;

Part 3 of article 18.

The verified copies of the decision of the Electoral Committee of a municipal union are to be directed to the Electoral Committee of St-Petersburg in two days after such decisions are made.

Thus, publicizing the ECMF report occurs by means of publication in a municipal newspaper or are brought to the voters notice otherwise, and is also subject to submission to other Mass Media means.

At the same time part 1 of article 52 of the Federal law, dated 12.06.2002, N 67-FZ "About Basic Warranties of Electoral Rights and the Right to participate in the Referendum for citizens of the Russian Federation" confirms distribution of printed publications, containing the EMCFs decisions about the election appointment within the borders of the region, where the election takes place.

Thus, municipal newspapers, containing information about additional elections to the Municipal Council have only been distributed within the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) (if they have ever been distributed at all).

The actual legislation of the Russian Federation doesnt dictate the order of distribution of newspapers within Municipal Units. It only obliges the local self-governing authorities to provide a single obligatory sample to libraries. Neither the number of copies, nor places of distribution are regulated by the laws. Differently speaking, it is impossible to control the real distribution of such newspapers, and consequently, it is almost impossible to prove that the obligation of the newspaper distribution has been neglected.

At the same time, as the municipal newspaper is the only way of information of the population about additional elections, it is also the only proof that the equality of elections and the freedom of voters to form their own opinion are observed, meaning the newspaper can prove that the principle of publicity of the election process is fulfilled.

As the election to Municipal Councils MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) were additional, and no legislatively fixed period of implementation was established for them, it was unpredictable when the ECMF would have appointed the election. Under such conditions after the Speakers post in the Upper Chamber became vacant a person, wishing to nominate to the Municipal Council with a possibility of further appointment to the Federal Council, the First Applicant, in particular, would have to attend over 100 municipal libraries not to miss the printed publication, informing about the election.

The Applicants supposed that as there are many Municipal Units, which prevent the potential candidates to the Municipal Council, residenting outside the municipal formation, from getting data about additional elections, the ECMF has been obliged to submit the information not only to municipal newspapers, but also to other Mass Media means.

However, the Courts examining the cases of the Applicants havent paid any attention to this argument, obviously having considered that as the ECMFs representative has submitted the issue of a newspaper, supposedly distributed within the territory of the municipal formation, it is a sufficient proof of the publicity principle having been observed.

At assessment of these grounds the Applicants ask the Court to take into account that the case of Mrs. Matvienkos appointment to the Federal Council has caused acute interest of the public.

Since the meeting of the President of RF with Head of regions, which took place on 24th of June 2011, where the idea of Mrs. Matvienkos appointment to the Speakers post in the Upper Chamber of the Parliament, every step of the public authorities and every their word on this matter was being extensively covered by the Mass Media. In fact, the appointment of Mrs. Matvienko to the post of the member of the Federal Council was the primary news discussed both on TV, in printed publications and in the Internet.

At the same time, no official sources of information had received any actual data until Mrs. Matvienko has announced her nomination in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) in the end of June 2011. This can be easily checked in accordance with the dates of Mass Media publications. However, after Mrs. Matvienko announced her intent, all the Mass Media sources have literally burst out with the news of Mrs. Matvienkos nomination and about expiration of the period for registration of candidates to Deputies of Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River).

According to the actual legislation of the RF, if a municipal formation has a site in the Internet, it should provide the data about activities of the local self-governing authority there (part 1 of article 13 of the Federal law, dated 09.02.2009 N 8-FZ "About access to information about activities of state authorities and local self-governing authorities). At the same time, the list of data, subject to placement in the Internet, doesnt oblige the local self-governing authority to place on the Internet the data about the ECMF activities, including its decision to appoint the election.

However, according to the typical practice pdf-copies of municipal newspapers are placed in the sites of Municipal Units in the Internet. In particular, it was so in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and in the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River).

In the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) there has been only one exclusion from this rule. Issue 10 (86) of the newspaper, issued on 30th of June 2011, containing data about the additional election appointment, has been placed in the site accurately after expiration of the registration of candidates for Deputies of the Municipal Council. It has been placed in the site of 28th of July 2011 on 11: 38 p.m.

As stated in issue 14.16. in the Facts section, the access to the site of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) was provided by a commercial organization, managed by the Deputy of the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) Mr. Bogatushin. He was the member of The United Russia party, who had resigned from his post to make the Municipal Council illegitimate, and afterwards he nominated to the mandate, which he had previously resigned. According to the data obtained from the system, administrator of the OOO (LLC) Caesar + the access to the site had been ceased on the request of Mr. Bogatushin till the period of candidate registration expired. The main page of the site, containing links to pdf-copies of the newspaper Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) was unavailable at request. The system administrator is sure that there were no technical troubles (See Annex 15).

At this, the IT-specialist, who obtained the information from the system administrator of the OOO (LLC) Caesar + explained that the view of the main page of the site Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) was available in the regime of saved copies in the Russian searching system Yandex. This copy showed that on 30th of July 2011 no links on issue 14 (126) of the newspaper, which should have been issued on 30th of June 2011, was not available on the site. This allows the Applicants to suppose that the issue of the newspaper, supposedly providing the information about the additional election for Mrs. Matvienko, didnt exist even a month after the announced date of the election information distribution, which was 30th of June 2011.

The persons, interested in the planned elections, can also get the information from the official site of the City Electoral Committee of St-Pb in the Internet. This Internet resource allows online review of data about municipal unions, where the elections are assigned, about registered candidates etc.

As there are precise time limits for notification of the SEC (two days), the persons interested in the elections had no problem in access to this Internet resource before the election in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River). The only exclusion during many years was the delay of the data placement after the period of registration of candidates for Deputies of the Municipal Councils of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) had expired. The data was placed a month later than it should have been. It also should be mentioned that almost at the same time elections took place in two other Municipal Units, and information about them was placed in time.

The Chairman Deputy of he SEC of St-Pb Mr. Krasnyansky announced that he had not known about the decision, made by the ECMF of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and ECMF of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) till the end of July, when the period of registration of candidates for Deputies of the certain Municipal Councils.

Under the circumstances described it was very hard to get timely data about the forthcoming elections. And it was absolutely impossible to prove that the ECMF has infringed its obligation to timely distribution of municipal newspapers, providing the necessary information.

Taking the described circumstances into account along with the fact that the actual legislation of RF obliges the local self-governing authorities to answer a citizens claim during 30 days, the First Applicant has reasonably supposed that if he addressed the incity Municipal Councils in person, asking to notify him in case the additional elections are appointed, the period of the candidate registration would have expired already.

Thats why the First Applicant addressed the Deputy of the State Duma Mrs. Dmitrieva, who as a Deputy has a right to demand an answer to her inquiry during the period, when some actions can be taken about it.

The applicable issues 1 and 3 of article 14 of the Federal law, dated 08.05.1994, N 3-FZ "About the status of the Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation" say the following:

1. the Deputy of the State Duma (the requester) has a right to send an inquiry to Chairmen of Electoral Committees on the matters, falling within their competence, observing the requirements of clause 18 of this Federal law.

3. The authoritative person, receiving the inquiry, must reply to it in writing not later than in 30 days after its receipt or during a different period, approved by the requester.

In Mrs. Dmitrievas inquiry, dated 5th of July 2011, the aim of the inquiry was announced as the nomination of candidates to the municipal election, and it was additionally explained that the answer should have been given during a period, when this aim could have been realized.

However, the inquiry was answered only on 1st of August 2011, which prevented from nomination of candidates to the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River).

15.3.7. The Court should pay attention to the fact that the Deputies of Municipal Units started to resign collectively soon after the President of RF had announced his idea. This was an official reason for appointment of the additional election.

One of the first to resign was the Deputy of the Municipal Council of the MU Poselok Aleksandrovskoe (the Alexandrovskoe settlement), the member of the political party The United Russia Mrs. Barannikova. As it was already mentioned in issue 14.6. in the Facts section, the Deputy stated in her claim for resignation that she was going to give her place to Mrs. Matvienko.

However, as it was officially known in advance about the election to the MU Poselok Aleksandrovskoe (the Alexandrovskoe settlement) and the interested citizens had a possibility to nominate to Deputies of this MU, seriously competing Mrs. Matvienko and endangering her promotion to the Federal Council, the deputies of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) also had to start resigning.

The fabulousness of such resignations is best illustrated by the fact, that the resigning Deputies of the listed MU were members of the leading party The United Russia, to which Mrs. Matvienko belongs, as well. It is also remarkable that in two weeks all of them have nominated themselves to their own posts, recently left.

Can such a situation be treated as a coincidence?

15.3.8. The Municipal Electoral Committees and the SEC of St-Pb havent let in the citizens, wanting to complain about certain cases of law infringement during the election on the day of election, and therefore people couldnt protect their suffrage in-city, directly at the moment of law infringement.

The Second Applicant paid attention to banishing of journalists from the election, and went in person to the ECMF of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River). However, nobody opened him, but informed him that no claims were accepted on the date.

This is why the Second Applicant called the police on mobile (See Annex 35). However, the policemen arrived and informed the Second Applicant that they were not authorized to resist the ECMF employees, as the observation over ECMF obligations and their satisfaction was out of their competence.

The applicable part 5 of article 10 of the Law of St-Pb dated 14.11.2008 N 681-118 "About election of Deputies of Municipal Councils of Incity Municipal Formations of St-Petersburg" says:

The Electoral Committees have to consider the complains about law infringement within their competence, arriving during the electoral campaign, carry out the appropriate inspections and send written answers to the claimants during five days, but not later than a day before the election. In case the claims arrive on the day of election or a day after it, the claims must be answered immediately.

This statement ensures timely reaction to the law infringement.

Thus, on the day of the election with participation of Mrs. Matvienko any violation of the citizens suffrage, the Second Applicant in particular, as he was a voter in the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), could not have been reacted to because of the incompetence of law enforcement bodies. It was impossible to address the competent authority, as well.

15.3.9. One of the most spectacular examples of how the State interferes into realization of the suffrage is the arrest of the First Applicant, when he has arrived to the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region), aiming to submit the declaration of consent to nominate during the election.

In more detail this violation is explained in section 14.17. in the Facts section. It is notable that no documents, confirming that the First Applicant had somehow infringed the law, were compiled, which makes us suppose that the aim of this arrest was not to maintain the public order, but to prevent a nominee, able to compete Mrs. Matvienko in her appointment to the Federal Council of the FA of RF, nominate as a candidate for the forthcoming election.

15.3.10. Besides the representatives of the political party The United Russia 6 (six) more persons nominated for the election in the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and 4 (four) more persons did so in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region). 9 of 10 persons have nominated themselves independently.

And there are some interesting cases of coincidence here, as 3 of 6 independent persons in the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) have also nominated themselves in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region). Firstly, it is not clear how the independent nominees have learnt about the forthcoming election, whereas all the Mass Media sources informed that the information about the elections had been being concealed. It is also absolutely incomprehensible how these people managed to nominate themselves in the same Municipal Units with Mrs. Matvienko.

It should be additionally noted that the independently nominated candidates didnt hold any preelection agitation or somehow tried to get any support from the voters. The representative of the executive authority has announced her position during the meeting in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, and it seem that the organizers of the election agreed with this idea:

. It is obvious that no one is voting for some abstract Mr. Ivanov, everybody will come to vote for Mrs. Matvienko. Though, we have to decide how to organize people so that they come.

It is not a surprise that according to the results of election to the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) the candidates, nominated independently, havent collected even 13% of votes. At the same time the least percentage of votes, gathered by the candidates of The United Russia was 35%.

In the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) the candidates, nominated independently, havent gathered over 7% of votes, whereas the least percentage of votes, gathered by the candidates of The United Russia was 56%.

However, nobody can confirm or object these percentage data, because the journalists have been banished from the elections and couldnt observe the process of vote calculation.

15.3.11. Resuming all the above-mentioned the Applicants supposed that the State has abused its obligation to remain neutral during the election on the 21st of August 2011 in the following ways:

1. It has forced the resignation of Deputies from their mandates in the municipal formation, which led to illegitimacy of Municipal Councils and appointment of the additional election;

2. It has intently concealed information about the ECMFs decision to assign the election and consequently prevented interested persons (in particular, the First Applicant, who residented out of the MU territory) from getting the information about appointment of the additional election to the Municipal Councils of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region), which has been done by the following actions:

) the municipal paper, containing the information in question, hasnt been distributed;

) the obligation to submit the data about the additional elections to the Mass Media sources but the municipal paper hasnt been fulfilled;

) the decision about he ECMFs decision hasnt been sent to the SEC of St-Pb, which consequently led to not placing the data in the site in the Internet until the period of the candidate registration expired;

) the answer to the inquiry of the Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of RF Mrs. Dmitrieva hasnt been provided until the period of the candidate registration expired.

3. It has organized an agitation meeting in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, during which citizens were threatened and bribed, and otherwise persuaded to vote for Mrs. Matvienko, and other citizens of this municipal formation were also persuaded to do so.

4. It has initiated the premises of Electoral Committees to close so that the citizens had no possibility to stand for their suffrage, while their electoral rights were being infringed.

5. The Mass Media representatives had no possibility to cover the election, as their activities were limited by the organizers of the election.

6. The voter lists have been changed, which had significantly changed the electoral quotient in relation to the regular election to the Municipal Council, which had been held before.

7. The First Applicants right for personal security has been violated to prevent him from participation in the election as a candidate to Deputies of the Municipal Councils.

b The victim status of the Applicants

15.4. The First Applicant is a resident of RF, registered in St-Pb. Having an active civil position and a high level of political consciousness, he wanted to take part in the political life of his country.

As it comes from issue 27 of article 2 of the Federal law, dated 12.06.2002, N 67-FZ "About Basic Warranties of Electoral Rights and the Right to participate in the Referendum for citizens of the Russian Federation", the First Applicant has a passive suffrage, meaning he can nominate as a candidate to posts within the State Government bodies and local self-governing authorities.

However, as the elections to the Municipal Councils MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) were of formal character and didnt express the real will of the population, but only were a way of overcoming the legal formalities by the State with final aim of assignment of a certain person to the post within the Upper Chamber of Parliament, the First Applicant had no possibility to realize his right for being elected.

Thus, taking into account the arguments about interference of the State into the election process, given in part 15.3 of this Application, the First Applicant supposes that he has become the victim of infringement of article 3 of protocol 1 of the Convention by the State of the Russian Federation.

15.5. Regarding the Second Applicant it should be noted, that the author of the Application is acknowledged with the precedential Court practice, in particular, concerning the case The Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others versus the Russian Federation" (Appeals N 55066/00 and 55638/00).

This case is obviously similar to the claim of the Second Applicant, as the Third Applicant complained (N 55066/00 and 55638/00) that he couldnt vote for the party of his own choice, as that party was excluding from the election at the stage of registration.

Considering this case, the Court made the following conclusion supposedly, the infringed voting intent cannot be an independent basis for a proved appeal about the violated right for election. Firstly, the Court noted that it was obviously difficult to collect proof to demonstrate the nature and the seriousness of such an intention. In fact, the intention to vote for a certain party is just a thought, limited by the forum internum of a certain person. Its existence cannot be proved or objected until it is registered in the voting bulletin. Moreover, the voters preferences are not permanent and can change during time under the influence of political events or the preelection campaign. Sudden and rapid changes of the voters intents are an established political and social phenomenon.

15.5.1. At this the Courts decision on this case included the following statements: common principles of the European constitutional heritage, forming the basis of any really democratic society, underline the right to vote under the condition of equal, free, secret and direct elections, held on the regular basis. From the point of view of a voter, free elections have two aspects: the freedom to form his or her opinion and the freedom to express this opinion.

Speaking about the freedom to form ones opinion the European Court notes that the authorities of the European Union fixed this freedom, obliging the State to remain neutral.

According to the basis, described in detail in clause 15.3 of this Application, the Applicants suppose that as the State has abused its obligation to remain neutral regarding the election process, the appropriate choice of candidates havent been provided, from which the voters could have elected with an appropriate freedom degree.

The inquiry for information, sent by the member of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of RF, indicates that the political force Fair Russia (led by the Deputy, who compiled the inquiry on the request of the First Applicant) was also going to nominate its candidates to the forthcoming elections, offering the citizens at least the choice of two political parties.

Communists and many other political forces of Russia were going to act in the same way, as everybody in Russia understood that the regional elections with participation of Mrs. Matvienko were, in fact, the elections to the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of RF, not just intended for completion of the no longer legitimate Municipal Council.

However, due to the inextricable situation, created by State and local self-governing authorities, all political parties have been deprived of their rights, excluding several independently nominated appointees of the Party The United Russia, who have been used to create the apparition of a fair election. Some people, like the First Applicant, were even arrested when they tried to realize their suffrage.

Differently speaking, if we compare the cases, leading the Third Applicant (Claims N 55066/00 and 55638/00) and the 1st and the 2nd Applicants appeal to the Court, the latter case involves absolute impossibility to vote on the basis of ones convictions and to have any choice for voting, because of the State abusing its obligation to remain neutral.

15.5.2. The Third Applicant hasnt provided any information about the means of his suffrage realization. It is not known if he put his bulleting into the ballot or if he attended the electoral site on the day of the election. He also hasnt initiated or participated in any investigation at the incity level, when the Courts could have acknowledged that he was going to vote for a Party, making its inquiry, said the Court when considering the case "The Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others versus the Russian Federation".

The Second Applicant, in his opinion, also supposes that he has become the victim of infringement of article 3 of protocol 1 of the Convention by the State of the Russian Federation, as he has used all of the possibilities to retain his right to vote for the candidate he wished.

Firstly, it was voting against everyone during the election.

Besides, he addressed the Court of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb with a appeal about infringement of his suffrage by means of forcing of the election process. In more detail this civil case is described in clauses 14.29.-14.32 in the Facts section.

Differently speaking, the Second Applicant actively protected his right for full-featured choice of candidates on equal and fair basis. The Second Applicant supposes that the Russian Federation has infringed the clause 3 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, as it has interfered into the formation of the candidate body, violating the principle of freedom and equality during the nomination process.

In this case the First Applicant was a certain person, whom the Second Applicant would have elected, though he asks the Court to pay attention to general infringement of the election process, which prevented all political parties except the leading party to participate in the election and consequently, prevented the Second Applicant from formation of his own political position and realization of his suffrage.

15.5.4. It should be also noted that the agitation meeting in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, where the voters and public associations were being bribed and threatened, as well as limitations of the Press freedom in coverage of the calculation of votes and the election process also violate the Applicants right for the free and equal election. The Applicant supposes his freedom of suffrage has been violated as the degree of distortion of the public opinion because of the described actions of the State already cannot be assessed.

c Depletion of internal funds of legal protection

15.5. On 19th of August 2011 the First Applicant addressed the Court of the Petrogradsky district of St-Pb with an inquiry about the illegality of the ECMFs decision (made on 27th of June 2011) about establishment of the additional elections in the MU Okrug Petrovsky, as well as illegality of non-publishing the data about the Committee meeting on 27th of June 2011, which consequently prevented the Mass Media representatives from attending the meeting and covering it for the public (in particular for the First Applicant). He also inquired that the ECMFs action on concealment of the date of election, its misinforming him about the registration (when it actually was NON-REGISTRATION) of his declaration of consent to be nominated as a candidate to Deputies of the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region).

15.5.1. Firstly, it should be noted that the Court immediately has ceased case procession I regard to the data concealment, indicating the valid decision that the ECMF should observe the publicity principle by distribution of the municipal newspaper, which was confirmed with a single evidence, being the issue of such newspaper, provided by the ECMFs representative.

The First Applicant indicated that the ECMF must have submitted information to other means of the Mass Media, as, for example, the First Applicant wasnt a resident within the district where the municipal newspaper was being distributed. He also stated that the number of printed copies and places of distribution for this newspaper werent regulated by the law, so it was necessary to know when the ECMFs meeting had been held to find the newspaper issue, obligatory transmitted to libraries (basing on the information about the date of the meeting it was possible to figure out when the obligatory transmitted issue would arrive in the library). However, the Second Applicant mentioned, the First Applicant had no possibility to get any information, even information about the municipal formation where the commission was called.

However, the Court hasnt taken the First Applicants arguments into account, as it was considered that ECMF is not obliged to submit the data about the election appointment to other sources of the Mass Media, but is only recommended to do so.

Taking all the above-mentioned into account together with the Court decision on the case about non-distribution of the municipal newspaper, which was ceased when nobody new Mrs. Matvienko was nominated in two Municipal Units, it can be supposed that in general the First Applicant had no possibility to justify his position.

15.5.2. All the proof was considered by the Court as indirect, including the proof of the data concealment such as resignation of Deputies and their further nomination into Deputies of the Municipal Formation, belonging of these persons to the party The United Russia, identity of independent nominees and absence of preelection contests between them and the representatives of the Party The United Russia, the Mass Media informing about the information concealment and the common public opinion on thus matter, Internet sites of the MU, unavailable until expiration of the candidate registration period, newspaper issues placed in the sites in the Internet with a one month delay and many other.

15.5.3. The First Applicants attempt to question the Chairman Deputy of the SEC of St-Pb Mr. Krasnyansky as a witness for the Court to learn when the SEC had received the data about the additional elections in the MU wasnt successful.

15.5.4. The Court couldnt establish a connection between the First Applicants arrest by the law enforcement representatives during submission of documents to the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the States attempt to prevent the First Applicant from realization of his suffrage, and so this story was considered impertinent.

15.5.5. Thus, the First Applicants claim was partially declined, and for the other part of the claim the case procession was ceased because a juridical decree about a similar case had become valid.

15.5.6. In his private application about the definition of the case cease for a part of his claim the First Applicant indicated that it was impossible to cease the case procession because the basis and the subject of his claim was different from the ones in the claim of the other citizen.

15.5.6. However, in spite of the direct instructions about the impossibility of the case procession cease in such a case, the private claim remained unsatisfied.

15.5.8. A similar situation took place in relation with the Cassation claim about the refusal to satisfy the established requirements. Actually, the Cassation Court has just indicated that the conclusions of the Court of the Petrogradsky district complied with the actual legislation.

15.6. On 15th of September 2011 the Second Applicant addressed the Court of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb with an inquiry to the ECMF of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), demanding it to acknowledge that the concealment of information about the election appointment was illegal, as well as the closing the ECMF premises on the date of the election, and the election held on 21st of August 2011.

Within his inquiry the Second Applicant appealed about the ECMF activities as these violated his right for formation of his independent opinion on the basis of assessment of the established candidates.

15.6.1. The Second Applicant provided an example of the First Applicant, as the case of his arrest, concealment of information etc. prevented him from nomination (realization of his right to nominate during the election). The Second Applicant indicated that in the same way other persons were prevented from nomination, so the voters (himself, in particular) were forced either to vote for the candidates, nominated by the leading party, or to vote against everyone.

15.6.2. Besides, the Applicant indicated that the agitation meetings in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb were illegal. In the Second Applicants opinion this demonstrated the tendency of the State interfering into the election process out of legal bounds.

15.6.3. The Second Applicant called the Court to pay attention to the fact that the composition of the voting region had been changed, while the voters were not informed that it was a law infringement. He also attracted the Courts attention to the fact that the ratio of voters per one Deputy mandate was 15% more than it had been during the last regular election.

15.6.4. The Court didnt accept the Second Applicants arguments about the change of the composition of electoral regions, as in the Courts opinion this didnt violate the Applicants rights.

The matter of agitation by the Executive authorities was ignored by the Court.

The Court didnt comment on the fact that the electoral Committees were closed on the day of election, either.

15.6.5. However, the Court supposed that as the First Applicant was mentioned as a person who wasnt allowed to nominate during the election, and as the Second Applicant was going to vote for him, the claim of the Second Applicant had been submitted to protect not his personal interests, but the interests of a third party, namely the First Applicant.

Basing on this, the Court decided to cease the case procession.

15.6.6. Regarding the information concealment the Court did the same as the Court of the Petrogradsky district of St-Pb had done earlier, just indicating the prejudicial force of the earlier made Court decision, once again attaching the only evidence that the ECMF had properly fulfilled its obligations on publication of the elections assignment, the issue of the municipal newspaper with a correspondent note, to the case about petition of the ECMF representative.

Thus, the case procession, initiated by the Second Applicant, was ceased.

15.6.7. Addressing the Cassation Court, the Second Applicant, as it had been previously done by the First Applicant, indicated the statements of the Russian Legislation, according to which the case procession could be ceased on the basis of the prejudicial force of a previously made decision (in case the basis and the subject of the claims are identical). While the Second Applicant provided many basements for his claim, which hadnt been considered by the Court before, the private claim of the Second Applicant wasnt satisfied.

15.7. Having been refused in the Kirovsky district court of St-Pb, the Second Applicant supposed that he wouldnt be allowed to get to consideration of the claim essence, as the respondent was the State, headed by the President, whose will was realized despite the barricades.

The case of Mrs. Matvienkos promotion to the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of RF from the very beginning was organized rather tactically, so that almost any arguments of the Second Applicant (as well as the First Applicant or any other citizens, appealing about the election process), though giving evidence that the elections had been falsified, allowed the Court not to formally acknowledge the publicity principle infringement.

For instance, if the Applicants stated that the Deputies had refused their mandates in the Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), and later they nominated to the election, the Courts reply was that it was allowed for the Deputies to do so.

If the Applicants stated that the municipal newspaper, informing about appointment of the additional election, had been placed in the site in the Internet right after expiration of the candidate registration period, and that was the first case of such delay in the Internet forever, the Court replied that the actual legislation didnt demand that the newspaper should be placed in the site in the Internet.

If the Applicants mentioned that the information about the election assignment had been concealed from the SEC of St-Pb, the Court declined these arguments, trusting the ECMF representatives or basing on the post office receipts. At this the Applicants appealed about the authenticity of the represented receipts, asking to question the representative of the SEC of St-Pb, who had in person reported that the ECMF had abused its obligation to inform the superior Committee. However, the Court didnt see the reasons to mistrust the ECMF representative.

In case the Court couldnt reject some arguments, missing the law essence and following only the letter of the law, the Court just ignored them (for instance, the fact the ECMF hadnt provide the information about the election appointment to other sources of Mass Media, besides the municipal newspaper).

As a result, the Second Applicant considered it was only possible to substantiate the illegality of the election by appellation about the agitation meeting, which he could prove, as he had an audio-record of this meeting.

Thus, on 11th of November 2011 the Second Applicant addressed the Court of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb, addressing the claim to the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb demanding to acknowledge that the held agitation meeting, intended for support of Mrs. Matvienko as a candidate of the political party The United Russia Mrs. Matvienko, and, as it was impossible to assess the influence of this meeting on results of the election, to annul the results of the elections.

Within his claim the Applicant has included the most typical phrases of the State authority employees, confirming, in the Applicants opinion, the political prejudice within the election process since its very start, and proving that the State hadnt remained neutral at all.

According to the juridical decree, dated 14th of October 2011, this claim abandoned on the following basis:

1. no proof is provided to confirm the circumstances, stated by the Second Applicant;

2. the Second Applicant hasnt indicated the results of what elections he asks to annul;

3. the procedural position of the legal argument about annulment of the election results is not defined;

4. it is necessary to pay the established fee.

Not arguing with the first statement of the Juridical Decree, though the Legislative Body provides the citizen with a right to prove his position during the course of the legal argument, the Second Applicant provided a computer disc with an audio-record of the appealed meeting, as well as the decoding of this record, made by specialists.

This time the Second Applicant emphasized that he was appealing about the results of elections to the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka, which had taken place on 21.08.2011 in St-Pb, despite the fact that the initially submitted claim had contained this data.

Basing on the actual legislation the Second Applicant defined the procedural position of the argument participants as follows: the Applicant for himself; the State authority, which actions had infringed the Applicants suffrage for the Administration of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb; authoritative representatives whose actions had infringed the Applicants suffrage for the employees of the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district of St-Pb.

Besides, the Applicant paid the established state fee of 800 rubles.

15.7.5. According to the juridical decree of the Kirovsky district Court of St-Pb, dated 01.11.2011, the claim was again returned to the Second Applicant.

The Court explained that the Second Applicant had failed to correct the 2nd and the 3rd demands, given in the juridical decree, dated 14.10.2011 (the Second Applicant hasnt indicated the results of what elections he asks to annul; the procedural position of the legal argument about annulment of the election results is not defined).

15.7.6. When the Second Applicant submitted a private claim on the 1st of November 2011 he stated that he cannot define the election he meant but name the election directly, so he believed the Court demand was illegal.

Regarding the procedural position of the argument participants, the Second Applicant indicated that asking to annul the results of the elections, he formally was appealing about the results of the ECMFs actions, though the ECMF wasnt a participant of this argument, but it didnt prevent the Court from initiating a case, as co-responders could be attracted during the case procession.

15.7.7. The Cassation Authority didnt satisfy the private appeal of the Second Applicant.

15.8. Violation of the right for freedom and personal security, fixed in clause 5, issue 1 (c) of the Convention, including due to interference into these rights with intents, unforeseen by the Convention, which infringes clause 18 of the Convention.

The First Applicant supposes that the Russian Federation has infringed his right for freedom and personal security.

Issue 1 () of article 5 of the Convention:

Everyone has a right for freedom (free movement) and personal security. No one can be arrested, except in the cases, listed below, according to the legal regulations:

c) the legal retention or arrest of a person, so that this person would appear before a competent authority and answer the reasonable apprehension of committing an act of offence, in case it is supposed on adequate grounds that it is necessary to prevent this person from committing an act of offence or to prevent him or het from escaping after the offence commitment.

15.9. On 12th of August 2011 the First Applicant arrived to the ECMF of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) aiming to register his declaration of content for nomination as a candidate to the Deputies of the Municipal Council in the book of the incoming correspondence.

As it comes from the video-record, attach to this Application, the First Applicant had a calm dialogue with employees of the Municipal Formation, insisted on his legal views and didnt demand to decide the matter of his nomination at the moment, but just was asking to register his inquiry.

When the employees of the Municipal Council refused to register his inquiry, the First Applicant only indicated that the data about the election appointment had been concealed, so he hadnt manage to submit his declaration of content in time. He agreed that the ECMF might refuse to register him as a candidate, but asked to provide a written refusal, so that he could use it when appealing to the Court.

The First Applicant insisted on this, because he understood that if he didnt come to the municipal formation, asking to register him as a candidate (though he understood that the period of the candidate registration had expired already), the Court would reject his Application about infringement of his passive suffrage by the ECMF, as he would not be able to prove that he was going to realize his right to be elected.

It is obvious from the video-record that the First Applicant didnt disturb the public order, spoke calmly and only asked to write down his inquiry into the register.

All actions of the First Applicant as well as their possible consequences, as it was obvious for an outside observer, didnt constitute any danger. However, the policemen transported the First Applicant to the police department, which makes one suppose that the First Applicant was suspected in possible commission of acts of administrative offence.

Analysis of the applicable laws of RF

15.10. The actual legislation of RF establishes the limits of power for the police, which allows to prevent chaotic actions of the policemen.

In particular, a person cannot be taken to the police department only because the law enforcement member wishes it.

An adequate ground is required to take a person to the police department.

15.10.1. The Federal Law dated 07.02.2011, N 3-FZ "About the Police"

Issues 3 and 13 of part 1 of article 13 in particular define the following rights of the police:

3) to call citizens to the police department to check the inquiries and messages about criminal or administrative offences according to the established procedure; to ask for the necessary explanations, reference documents, documents (their copies) in regard to such inquiries or messages, in particular on the order of the Investigating or Interrogating officers; to bring citizens and authoritative representatives to the police department in cases, listed within the Federal Law, in case they unreasonably evade coming to the police when called;

At this, it is specially emphasized that a citizen can be called for giving explanations (issue 3 of article 13 of the Federal law, dated 07.02.2011, N 3-FZ "About the Police").

At the same time this regulation requires a special order of realization. In case a citizen should be called, he or she is sent a summoning notice, where reasons and grounds for their visit to the law enforcement authority is explained. Thus, the citizen, invited for giving explanations, can minimize the harm to his or her interests (for instance, warn his or her boss, change the schedule of the day or at least changing the time of the visit to the police after approval with the authoritative representative, etc.).

This special regulation also describes the case when a citizen intentionally evades the visit to the law enforcement authority, and in this case he or she can be brought to the police by force. At this, the compulsory delivery of a person is considered to be a measure of enforcement of a person, following his or her voluntary refusal from execution of the authoritative requirement.

Taking all the above-mentioned into account, the actions of the policemen were not the realization of their rights stated in issue 3 of article 13 of the Federal law, dated 07.02.2011, N 3-FZ "About the Police", but the interference into the First Applicants right for personal security.

15.10.2. 13) to deliver citizens, in other words, bringing them to service premises of the territorial police department by force to decide if the citizen should be arrested (in case such a decision cannot be made on-the-spot); - the protocol should be compiled in accordance with parts 14 and 15 of article 14 of this Federal law.

Here one more statement of the law should be given, which is:

The Federal Law dated 02.05.2006 N 59-FZ "About the order of consideration of appeals of the RF citizens"

Part 1 of article 2.

Citizens have a right to appeal in person, as well as to send individual and collective appeals to state authorities, the local self-governing authorities and authorized representatives.

The policemen arrived at the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and saw the First Applicant asking to register his declaration of content. The policemen couldnt notice that he was doing nothing wrong. Even taking into the account, that an inquiry has arrived concerning the First Applicant, the essence of the inquiry cannot be ignored, as the law enforcement representative explained during the retaining process. The essence of the inquiry was written by the Secretary of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) at compilation of a claim to police department 18, which was he only asked to accept his declaration of conduct .

Differently speaking, the policemen had the information that the only wrongdoing, done by the First Applicant, was demanding that the authoritative representative accepted his declaration. They had to make a decision that there were no grounds for the arrest on-the-spot. However, they did quite the contrary.

Taking the above-mentioned into account, the First Applicant supposes, that issue 13 of part 1 of article 13 of the Federal law, dated 07.02.2011, N 3-FZ "About the Police" didnt provide any legal grounds for his retention.

15.10.3. Issue 5 of part 2 of article 14:

2. The police has a right to retain:

5) persons, involved into initiated cases of administrative offence, according to the grounds, the order and the time limits, established by the legislation about administrative offences.

Parts 14 and 15 of article 14:

14. After the arrest a protocol must be compiled, providing the following data: date, time and place of the protocol compilation, post and name of the Police employee, compiling the protocol, data about the person arrested, date, time, place, grounds and motives for arrest, the fact of notification of close relatives or connected persons of the person arrested.

15. The protocol about the arrest is signed by the police employee, who compiled it, and the person arrested. In case the person arrested refuses to sign the protocol, and appropriate note is made. The copy of the protocol is given to the person arrested .

The Code of RF about administrative offence dated 30.12.2011 N 195-FZ

Parts 1 and 5 of article 27.3.

1. The administrative detention, meaning short-time limitation of a physical persons freedom, can be used in exclusive cases when it is necessary for correct and timely consideration of a case of administrative offence, execution of the Decree related too the case of administrative offence

5. The person in detention is explained his or her rights and obligations, provided in this Code, which is noted in the protocol about the administrative detention .

Parts 1 and 2 clause 27.4.

1. A protocol about the administrative detention must be compiled, providing the following data: date, time and place of the protocol compilation, post and name of the Police employee, compiling the protocol, data about the person arrested, date, time, place, grounds and motives for arrest, the fact of notification of close relatives or connected persons of the person arrested.

2. The protocol about the administrative detention is signed by the police employee, who compiled it, and the person arrested. In case the person arrested refuses to sign the protocol, and appropriate note is made. The copy of the protocol is given to the person arrested.

Detention in breach of the law

As the intervention in a person's right for personal security was nothing to do with the police right to call a person for giving explanations, or compulsory bringing in order to determine the grounds for the detention, it must be concluded that this action was just a detention.

That is why it is necessary to define if the law provides for detention of citizens in case they behave as the First Applicant did in the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) 12.08.2011.

Part 1 of article 2 of the Federal law, dated 02.05.2006, N 59-FZ "About the order of consideration of appeals of the RF citizens", quoted above, confirms that the Applicants demand to accept his declaration of conduct was lawful. At this, the content of a citizens inquiry is not anyhow limited by the law, though the law obliges the state authority to accept any inquiries.

Part 2 of article 8 of the Federal law, dated 02.05.2006, N 59-FZ "About the order of consideration of appeals of the RF citizens" says:

The written appeal is subject to obligatory registration during three days after it is submitted to the state authority, a local self-governing authority or an authoritative representative.

Part 4 of article 13 of the Federal law, dated 02.05.2006, N 59-FZ "About the order of consideration of appeals of the RF citizens":

4. The written appeal, accepted during a private audience, is subject to registration and consideration in the order, established by the Federal Law.

Thus, the First Applicant had legal grounds for registration of his inquiry.

The First Applicant arrived to the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (the Petrovsky region) on a working day, on Friday, at 4 p.m., at working hours. He has chosen the date and time of his visit according to his schedule, as there were no specially established calling hours.

According to the abstracts of laws, given above, the First Applicant had a right to submit a written inquiry. The inquiry about a persons registration as a candidate for elections to the Municipal Council is not excluded from the right to submit a written inquiry. Moreover, the consideration of the citizens inquiry is, in fact, the next stage of the Authoritys actions, and in no way it should influence the procedure of the inquiry registration.

At the same time, the First Applicant was consequently retained in the police department for four hours.

Besides, no procedural documents were compiled regarding the First Applicant, no report on detention, no protocol of detention, no protocol about the case of administrative offence.

The conclusion:

The explained circumstances allow to conclude that there were no legal grounds for interference into the First Applicants right for personal security.

b the detention, not intended to make the Applicants appear before the authorized organization, not to prevent of an administrative offence implementation and not to prevent their chance to escape after the act of administrative offence.

15.11. The First Applicant supposes, that his detention is an infringement of the given statement of the Convention, as it hasnt been intended to make him appear before the authorized organization in view of him being suspected of administrative offence.

Firstly, this supposition is confirmed by the fact that no protocol about the administrative offence has been compiled.

All data, obtained by the policemen from the First Applicant after his retention and during his four-hour detention in the police department, were known to the policemen at the moment of his retention in the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region).

As there were no reports about detention and protocols about arrival of the First Applicant into the police department, it can be assumed that the policemen from the very start knew it wasnt necessary to procedurally register the detention, because the detention wasnt intended to ensure the Applicants appearance in Court, to prevent committing of an administrative offence by him, or to prevent him from escaping after committing of an administrative offence by him.

The conclusion:

The detention of the First Applicant missed the aims, established in the Convention as the ones, permitting interference into the right for personal security.

c real aims of the Applicants detention

15.12. While the First Applicant was trying to make the administrative workers to register his declaration of content for nomination as a candidate to the forthcoming election, he indicated that according to the Federal law, dated 02.05.2006, N 59-FZ "About the order of consideration of appeals of the RF citizens" the authoritative representatives had to provide him with a written answer.

The authoritative representative have discussed the case and concluded that the First Applicant in pursuit of some political interest (according to the video-record), after that they have called the police.

The police arrived and despite the fact that the First Applicant wasnt doing anything wrong, they retained him and kept him in the police department for 4 hours. No procedural documents were compiled during this period, and no legal consequences of this detention influenced the First Applicant. The only consequence, in fact, was that his declaration hadnt been registered in the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and that the working hours of the MU had expired, so the Applicant didnt manage to attend the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) to submit a similar declaration of candidacy, as he had intended.

The conclusion:

Taking all the above-mentioned into account, the First Applicant supposes that the real purpose of the interference into his right for personal security was to cease his attempt to nominate to the Municipal Councils of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), as his actions could obstruct the realization of the plan for promotion of Mrs. Matvienko into the Federal Council. In the First Applicants opinion the power representatives have just decided to exclude any risks that the Presidents task would be failed, even if a right for ones personal security should have been infringed.

use of all interior funds of legal protection of the right for ones personal security

15.13. On 2nd of September 2011 the First Applicant appealed to the Investigation Committee with a claim about commission of an offence, in which he indicated that he had been in detention on the 12th of August 2011 without compilation of any protocols about administrative offence, and in which he supposed his detention had been illegal.

The Applicant indicated that the detention didnt comply with any of the aims, stipulated by the legislation, and was aimed only to exclude disturbances during Mrs. Matvienko appointment to the Upper Chamber of Parliament.

Having studied the First Applicants claim the Deputy of the Investigator of the Investigation department refused to initiate a criminal case on 10th of November 2011, as the First Applicant had followed to the police department voluntarily and hadnt been forced to do so.

The investigator didnt pay attention to the fact that such actions of policemen involved infringement of ones right for personal security, no mater how voluntary the person got to the police department and what the grounds for the detention were.

The Applicant couldnt refuse to follow to the police department, or he would have been taken there by force.

Moreover, the First Applicant directly indicated to the policemen that he was trying to submit documents, and was once again asked to follow the policemen to the police department.

The only ground for detention was an inquiry arrived. No actual grounds for detention were announced to the First Applicant.

It must be additionally noted that one of the policemen addressed the correspondent video-recording the process of the declaration submission, when the First Applicant was being arrested. The policeman said: If you dont stop to record it, you will be arrested as well. These circumstances were registered by means of a video-camera.

Taking these circumstances into account, it is impossible to conclude that the detention wasnt infringing the Applicants right for personal security.

However, the Investigator concluded that the First Applicant visited the police department for a small talk in the police premises, which didnt object the law and didnt infringe the humans right for personal security.

15.14. It should be additionally noted that during the retention procedure the First Applicant contacted his representative by the mobile, and afterwards several Mass Media representatives called the police department.

The journalists asked about the grounds for detention of the First Applicant. The policemen replied that the First Applicant had committed some administrative offences, and read out abstracts from the protocol. See Annexes 49 and 50.

At the same time, as it comes from the refusal to initiate a criminal case on 10th of November 2011, this protocol had somehow disappeared, and the detention of the First Applicant was of informative character only and wasnt a consequence of some wrongdoing by the latter.

IV. EXPOSE RELATIF AUX PRESCRIPTIONS DE L'ARTICLE 35 P 1 DE LA CONVENTION

THE APPLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 35P1 OF THE CONVENTION

35P 1

(Voir chapitre IV de la note explicative. Donner pour chaque grief, et au besoin sur une feuille sEparEe, les renseignements demandEs sous les points 16 A 18 ci-apres)

(See section IV of the Explanatory note. If necessary, give the data, listed in issues 16 to 18 on an independent sheet)

(. IV . , , 16-18 )

16. Dcision interne dfinitive (date et nature de la dEcision, organe - judiciaire ou autre - l'ayant rendue)

The final interior decision (the date and nature of the decision, the authority (juridical or other) which made the decision)

( , - - ).

17. Autres dEcisions (EnumErEes dans l'ordre chronologique en indiquant, pour chaque dEcision, sa date, sa nature et l'organe -judiciaire ou autre - l'ayant rendue)

Other decisions (the chronological list, dates of decisions made, the authority (juridical or other) which made the decision

( , , - - )

18. Disposez-vous d'un recours que vous n'avez pas exercE? Si oui, lequel et pour quel motif n'a-t-il pas EtE exercE?

Do you have any means of protection, which you havent use ? If so, please, explain why you havent used it.

- , ? , , .

18.1. When the claim was submitted, the First Applicant was appealing about the refusal to initiate a criminal case in the Petrogradsky district court. The First Applicant decided not to wait till the Court makes its decision, as in his opinion it was hardly possible that the appealed decree would be acknowledged to be illegal.

Moreover, the First Applicant has already passed the Cassation Court with a claim about infringement of his suffrage, though he hasnt managed to obtain the Decree yet (issue 14.21. in the Facts section), and consequently, as the appeal about infringement of article 3 of protocol 1 of the Convention should be submitted during 6 months, it is considered as submitted in time.

At the same time in the First Applicants opinion, it was sufficient to unite the infringement of the right for personal security, in close connection with the infringement of the right for free election in one appeal.

Thats why the First Applicant decided to interrupt the six months period for appeal to the Court before the Cassation Court makes its decision about his claim, still trying various internal funds of legal protection, in particular, appealing about the indicated decree of the Investigator in the first and the Cassation instances. Though, by then the First Applicant was experienced in communication with the State about these elections and could suppose that way was not likely to be efficient.

The First Applicant will send the results of this matter consideration in Court instances as additional documents to the Court.

18.2. The Second Applicant has used two ways of his suffrage protection.

One of them was appealing about the actions of the ECMF and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), who concealed the data about elections (issues 14.29. 14.32. in the Facts section). The Second Applicant has passed both Court instances, while dealing with this case.

The second way was appealing about the illegal agitation meeting, held by the Executive authority (issues 14.33. 14.37. in the Facts section). Regarding this case, the Second Applicant managed to pass the first instance only, and on the date when this Application is being sent to the Court he has only submitted a private appeal to the Cassation instance, though this appeal hasnt been considered yet.

Despite these facts and taking into account that the Courts of both instances have considered the case of the data concealment and issued useless Decrees about it, the Second Applicant concluded that the final is easy predictable and decided not to appeal to the Cassation instance about this case.

Besides, both the First and the Second Applicant understand that the period of appeal to the Court is limited to 6 months and should be counted right after consideration of the case about the data concealment in the Cassation instance, which already has taken place.

Due to direct interconnection of both claims of the Second Applicant, he considers it is practice to fix that he has appealed to the Court now, though he still is going to use the internal funds of legal protection.

The Second Applicant will send the results of this matter consideration in the Cassation instance as additional documents to the Court.

V. EXPOSE DE L'OBJET DE LA REQUETE ET PRETENTIONS PROVISOIRES POUR UNE SATISFACTION EQUITABLE

EXPLANATION OF THE APPEAL SUBJECT AND PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS FOR FAIR COMPENSATION

(Voir chapitre V de la note explicative)

(See Part V of the Explanatory Note)

(. V )

19. The subject of this Application is the fact that the Russian Federation has abused its obligation to remain neutral during the election into a Legislative authority.

Since the President announced in front of the journalists that he wished to appoint a certain person to the Speakers post in the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and till the moment, when this person was indeed appointed to the indicated post, the State was implementing an accurately planned scheme, intended for bypassing of the public opinion and promotion of the member of the Leading party to the post of the Chairman of the Upper Chamber of the Parliament. This scheme was being realized both at the State level, and the level of St-Petersburg.

Taking all the above-mentioned into account, one of the Applicants has lost his possibility to be elected as the Government has been concealing the information about the election appointment, so he hasnt managed to nominate himself as a candidate. The Second Applicant lost the possibility of free election, as the set of candidates, representing various political movements, hasnt been gathered due to the same fact of the data concealment.

Moreover, aiming to prevent one of the Applicants from realization of his right for election, the State has infringed his right for personal security, thus distorting the aims of such intervention, stipulated by the Law.

Taking all the above-mentioned into account, the Applicants ask the Court to acknowledge that the Russian Federation has infringed article 3 of protocol 1 of the Convention in regard to both Applicants, and has infringed article 5 issue 1 (c) of the Convention in regard to of the First Applicant, in particular, by infringement of article 18 of the Convention.

VI. AUTRES INSTANCES INTERNATIONALES TRAITANT OU AYANT TRAITE L'AFFAIRE

OTHER INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES, WHICH HAVE CONSIDERED OR ARE CONSIDERING THE CASE

,

(Voir chapitre VI de la note explicative)

(See Part VI of the Explanatory Note)

(. VI )

1) Avez-vous soumis A une autre instance internationale d'enquEte ou de reglement les griefs EnoncEs dans la prEsente requEte? Si oui, fournir des indications dEtaillEes A ce sujet.

Have you submitted the above-mentioned appeals to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement? If so, give full details.

, , ? , .

No, we havent submitted a appeal.

VII. PIeCES ANNEXEES (PAS D'ORIGINAUX, UNIQUEMENT DES COPIES)

THE LIST OF ATTACHED DOCUMENTS (NO ORIGINALS, PLEASE, ONLY COPIES)

( , )

(Voir chapitre VII de la note explicative. Joindre copie de toutes les dEcisions mentionnEes sous ch. IV et VI ci-dessus. Se procurer, au besoin, les copies nEcessaires, et, en cas d'impossibilitE, expliquer pourquoi celles-ci ne peuvent pas Etre obtenues. Ces documents ne vous seront pas retournEs.)

(See section VII of the Explanatory note. Attach copies of all solutions, mentioned in sections IV and VI. If you have no copies, please, make them. If you cant make copies, please, explain your reasons. The documents attached will not be returned to you).

(. VII . , IV and VI. , . , . .)

21.

21.1. The video record 1 (The interview with the Deputy of the Chairman of the Electoral Committee of St-Pb Mr. Krasnyansky);

21.2. The video record 2 (The meeting of the President of RF with heads of regions 24.06.11);

21.3. The video record 3 (The audience of the President of RF, given to Mrs. Matvienko);

21.4. The video record 4 (The interview with Mrs. Matvienko about the acceptance of the Presidents proposal about her appointment to the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of RF);

21.5. The video record 5 (The interview with Mrs. Matvienko about the unimportance of the place of election);

21.6. The video record 6 (Messages about the supposed nomination of Mrs. Matvienko MU Gorod Lomonosov (The Town of Lomonosov) and the MU Poselok Aleksandrovskoe (the Alexandrovskoe settlement));

21.7. The Mass Media mentions that the Deputy of the Municipal Council of the MU Poselok Aleksandrovskoe (the Alexandrovskoe settlement) has resigned - http://www.neva24.ru/a/2011/07/06/ZHenshhina_blagodarja__kotor/;

21.8. The inquiry of the First Applicant sent to the Deputy of the State Duma Of the Federal Assembly of RF Mrs. Dmitrieva;

21.9. The inquiry of the Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of RF Mrs. Dmitrieva to the Municipal formation MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River), MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky district) about the case of the additional election appointment;

21.10. The video record 7 (The interview with Mrs. Matvienko, where she mentions her nomination as a candidate for the first time);

21.11. The video record 7 (The interview with Mrs. Matvienko, in which she states that representatives of almost all political parties have nominated for elections in the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region));

21.12. The video record 1 (The interview with the Deputy of the SEC Chairman Mr. Krasnyansky);

21.13. The reply of the Chairman of the ECMF of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) to the Deputy of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of RF Mrs. Dmitrieva 124, dated1.08.2011;

21.14 The data about the Deputy of the Municipal Council of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) Mr. Bogatushin from the Common State Register of Juridical Persons;

21.15. The lists of interrogations with evidence of the IT-specialist about his negotiations with the system administrator of the OOO (LLC) Caesar +; printed-out mails, written by the IT-specialist and the system administrator of the OOO (LLC) Caesar +;

21.16. The copy of the newspaper Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River);

21.17. The copy of the newspaper Narvskaya Zastava (The Narvskaya Gateway);

21.18. The Pdf-version of the newspaper Petrovsky Okrug, taken from the site of the municipal union MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region);

21.19. Data about the date of placement of the pdf-version of the newspaper Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) from the site of the municipal union MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region);

21.20. The Decree of the Court of the Petrogradsky district about the civil case, initiated on the claim of Mrs. Sikoeva, about protection of suffrage 2-3720/2011;

21.21. The Decree of the Court of the Kirovsky district about the civil case, initiated on the claim of Mrs. Mashutikova, about protection of suffrage 2-4045/2011;

21.22. Decisions about appointment of the additional elections to the MU Okrug Petrovsky;

21.23. Decisions about appointment of the additional elections to the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River);

21.24. The audio-record of the agitation meeting held in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district on 11th of August 2011;

21.25. The conclusion of the OOO (LLC) Foreneks with a decoded audio-record of the agitation meeting held in the Administration premises of the Kirovsky district on 11th of August 2011, 11/090 and 11/091 from 3.10.11;

21.26. The video record 8 (Arrest of the First Applicant 12.08.11 in the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region));

21.27. The Claim signed by the Secretary of the Municipal Council of the MU Okrug Petrovsky (The Petrovsky region) to police department 18 about the First Applicant;

21.28. The Claim signed by of the First Applicant on 19.08.11 submitted to the Court of the Petrogradsky district about protection of the suffrage; the corrected Claim, dated 20.08.11;

21.29. The Decree of the Court of the Petrogradsky district about the civil case 3947/11, dated 20th of August 2011;

21.30. The Decree on the civil case 3947/11 dated 20th of August 2011 about the case procession having been ceased;

21.31. The Cassation appeal of the First Applicant about the Decree of the Court of the Petrogradsky district about the civil case 3947/11 dated 20th of August 2011, submitted to the Judicial division of civil cases of the Town Court of St-Petersburg, dated 25.08.11;

21.32. The private appeal of the First Applicant about the Decree about the civil case 3947/11 dated 20th of August 2011 about the ceased case protection, submitted to the Judicial division of civil cases of the Town Court of St-Petersburg, dated 25.08.11;

21.33. The evidence given by the Mass Media representatives about their rights being infringed during the election, held on 21st of August 2011;

21.34. The evidence of witnesses about non-admittance of claimants to the ECMF premises on the day of the election;

21.35. Printed-out calls of the Second Applicant on the day of election, 21.08.11;

21.36. The Appeal of the Right-protecting Council to the Federal Government asking not to appoint Mrs. Matvienko to the Speakers post in the Federal Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation until decisions are made about civil cases of suffrage protection, registered because of law violations during the election with her participation;

21.37. The Decree of the Investigators Deputy from the investigation department of the Petrogradsky district of the IC of RF in St-Pb Mrs. Tumakina M.V., issued on 11th of October 2011 after the inspection 359 -11 about the First Applicant having been refused in regard to initiation of a criminal case;

21.38. The Decree of the Head of the ID of the Petrogradsky district of the IC of RF in St-Pb, signed by the Lieutenant Colonel of Justice Mr. Gavrikov on 13th of November 2011 after the inspection 359 -11 about the annulment of the illegal (unreasonable) Decree of the Investigator;

21.39. The Decree of the Deputy of the Investigator of the investigation department the Petrogradsky district of the IC of RF in St-Pb Mrs. Tumakina, issued on 10th of November 2011, after the inspection 346 -11 about the First Applicant having been refused in regard to initiation of a criminal case;

21.40. The Claim of the Second Applicant to the ECMF of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) and to the Court of the Kirovsky district about protection of suffrage, issued on 15.09.11;

21.41. The Decree of the Court of the Kirovsky district about the civil case 2-4686/11 on 5.10.11 about the case procession being ceased;

21.42. The private appeal dated 3.10.11 about the Decree of the Court of the Kirovsky district about the civil case 2-4686/11 dated 5.10.11 about the case procession being ceased;

21.43. The Decree of the Judicial division of civil cases of the Town Court of St-Petersburg dated 31.10.11 about not changing the Decree of the Court of the Kirovsky district about the case procession being ceased about the civil case 2-4686/11 fated 5.10.11, and not satisfaction of the private appeal of the Second Applicant;

21.44. The appeal of the Second Applicant to the Administration of the Kirovsky district and authoritative representatives of the Administration of the Kirovsky district and to the Court of the Kirovsky district about protection of suffrage, issued on 11.10.11;

21.45. The Decree of the Court of the Kirovsky district about not initiating cases on the basis of the Second Applicants appeals to the Administration of the Kirovsky district and to authoritative representatives of the Administration of the Kirovsky district about protection of suffrage, issued on 11.10.11;

21.46. The corrected appeal of the Second Applicant to the Administration of the Kirovsky district and authoritative representatives of the Administration of the Kirovsky district the Court of the Kirovsky district about protection of suffrage, issued on 19.10.11; a cover letter with a list of attachments, sent to the Court of the Kirovsky district on 19th of October 2011;

21.47. The Decree of the Court of the Kirovsky district, issued on 1.11.11 about return of the Appeal, sent to the Administration of the Kirovsky district and authoritative representatives of the Administration of the Kirovsky district about protection of suffrage, issued on 19.10.11 to the Second Applicant as the Courts demands havent been fulfilled;

21.48. The private appeal the Second Applicant, signed on 7.11.11, about the Decree of the Court of the Kirovsky district dated 1.11.11 about return of his Appeal, submitted to the Administration of the Kirovsky district and authoritative representatives of the Administration of the Kirovsky district about protection of suffrage, issued on 19.10.11, back to the Second Applicant as he hasnt fulfilled the Courts requirements, to the Judicial division of civil cases of the Town Court of St-Petersburg

21.49. The evidence of Mrs. Dryakchlova about the information, obtained by the policemen of the 18th police department on 12th of August 2011 about the grounds for the First Applicants retention;

21.50. The evidence of Mrs. Andronova about the information, obtained by the policemen of the 18th police department on 12th of August 2011 about the grounds for the First Applicants retention;

21.51. The Appeal of the First Applicant to the Investigation Committee of St-Petersburg.

21.52. The data about the changed composition of the MU Krasnenkaya Rechka (The Red River) after the regular election has taken place (several many-apartment buildings have been included into the voter lists);

21.53. Various publications in the Mass Media, covering the election process and reflection common opinion of citizens regarding the fairness of the election;

21.54. Pictures of public events against Mrs. Matvienko.

21.55. The report about the assessment of efficiency of the Executive Bodies in RF regions according to the summary of 2009.

21.56. The Mass Media about the witness, who confirmed that newspapers with published data about the election have been distributed, indeed.

VIII. DECLARATION ET SIGNATURE

DECLARATION AND SIGNATURE

(Voir chapitre VIII de la note explicative)

(See Part VIII of the Explanatory Note)

(. VIII )

Je dEclare en toute conscience et loyautE que les renseignements qui figurent sur la prEsente formule de requEte sont exacts.

I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information I have given in the present application form is correct.

, and , , , () , .

Lieu / Place / The Russian Federation, St-Petersburg

Date / Date / 24th of November 2011

(Signature du / de la requErant(e) ou du / de la reprEsentant(e))

( )


!