The article can be found here:
1. As regards each applicant, has there been an interference with his or her freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
2. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, in respect of each applicant? In particular, given the spontaneous character of the assembly and that it was impossible to give notice within the time-limit prescribed by law, was the interference proportionate in the circumstances of the present case (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary, no. 25691/04, §§ 35-37, ECHR 2007‑III, and Eva Molnar v. Hungary, no. 10346/05, §§ 36-38, 7 January 2009)?
3. Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of freedom of assembly contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention?
4. Was each applicant’s arrest on 11 June 2013 compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:(a) What were the legal grounds for the applicant’s arrest during the gathering on 11 June 2013?(b) Did it pursue any aim enumerated in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
5. As regards the applicants’ trials, did they have fair hearings by independent and impartial tribunals in the administrative proceedings against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, given the absence of any prosecuting authority, whose role was allegedly performed by the judge?Case-specific questions
1. As regards each applicant, were they able to examine witnesses against them, in particular the police officers who had arrested them at the gathering, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention?
Mr Samburov (no. 35199/15)
2. Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty lasting four hours compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:(a) What were the legal grounds for the applicant’s detention?(b) Did the detention pursue any aim enumerated in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?