5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Rostov-on-Don, Russia. 6.  In early 2012 Ms B., headmistress of School no. 118 of Rostov‑on‑Don and chairwoman of the local electoral committee, removed the applicant from his position as an electoral committee member. 7.  On 1 September 2012 festive events were taking place at School no. 118 to celebrate “The Day of Knowledge” (День знаний). Around 8.15 a.m. on that day the applicant staged a solo demonstration (одиночный пикет) in front of the school. He distributed leaflets to the parents of the pupils expressing his negative opinion about the professional and personal qualities of the headmistress, Ms. B. The leaflets read as follows:
“Dear parents, you have entrusted your children to the staff of School no. 118, with Ms B. as its headmistress. I, Eduard Nikolayev, have reasons to believe that your child will be taught from Hottentot and Old Testament ethics. See for yourself: on 10 March 2012 I held a demonstration and was handled by the police. I was then sentenced to two days in detention by a justice of the peace, on a fabricated charge of hooliganism. This is now a widespread practice in respect of political matters in Russia. As the judicial reprisals were manifestly unlawful (since I had immunity as a member of an electoral committee), they needed to invent some justification. Such a justification was deliberately faked by Ms B., chairwoman of the local electoral committee ...” 8.  The school staff called police officer O., who was present at the school premises owing to enhanced security measures taken on that day. 9.  According to the applicant, within thirty minutes two additional police officers, T. and M., had arrived. He complied with their order to show his identity documents. At some point, while the police officers were carrying out an identity check through the police database, he decided to leave. However, when the applicant saw police officer T. following him, he changed his mind and returned. Officer T. then took him in a painful armlock and handcuffed him, without giving any valid reason; the applicant was then taken to the police van. 10.  According to the Government, Ms B. had informed police officer O. that the applicant was distributing leaflets. The applicant refused to familiarise officer O. with the contents of the leaflet or to leave the school premises upon her request. At 8.30 a.m. a special group of police officers arrived. They asked the applicant to present his identity documents and to proceed to the police van for an identity check. The applicant tried to escape; the police used force and handcuffs to stop him. Then the applicant was taken to the police station. 11.  At the police station the officer on duty drew up a record of the applicant’s administrative arrest for the purpose of bringing him to court. The record indicated that the applicant had been escorted to the police station at 9.55 a.m. and released at 12.20 p.m. on 1 September 2012. After that the on-duty officer compiled an administrative-offence record, according to which the applicant had used foul language at the premises of School no. 118 and disturbed passers-by in an insulting manner. Moreover, he had resisted arrest by pushing the police officers away and had tried to escape from them. The applicant was accused of minor hooliganism, an offence punishable under Article 20.1 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (hereinafter, “the CAO”) (see paragraph 25 below). 12.  The administrative case file contained a report by police officer M., which stated that at 8.50 a.m. on 1 September 2012 he and officer T. had arrested the applicant at the premises of School no. 118. The applicant had used foul language and had behaved inappropriately; in particular, he had disturbed passers-by. He had not reacted to their multiple requests to calm down and to cease this behaviour, had refused to present his identity documents and had tried to escape. Officer M. also recorded that the police had used physical force and handcuffs. 13.  On 1 September 2012 the administrative case was transferred to the Justice of the Peace of the Voroshilovskiy District of Rostov-on-Don. 14.  Upon his release from the police station on 1 September 2012, the applicant went to Rostov-on-Don City Emergency Hospital. At 4.25 p.m. he was examined by a doctor, who diagnosed him with a sprain to the right shoulder and bruises on both wrists. After being provided with the necessary treatment, at 5.20 p.m. the applicant was released from the hospital. The applicant stayed on sick leave in connection with these injuries from 1 until 24 September 2012. 15.  On 3 September 2012 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Investigative Committee of Rostov-on-Don alleging breaches of his rights to liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly by the police. It appears that the Rostov regional department of the Ministry of the Interior conducted an internal inquiry into this complaint. As a result, it was determined that police officers T. and M. had acted in accordance with the law and internal requirements and had not breached the applicant’s rights. 16.  On 12 September 2012 police station no. 1 of Rostov-on-Don informed the applicant in a letter that the administrative proceedings against him had been discontinued as his actions lacked the constituent elements of the crime. 17.  In November 2012 the applicant brought civil proceedings (in accordance with Article 254 of the Code of Civil Procedure) challenging the following actions on the part of the public authorities and officials: the police order to stop the demonstration and distribution of leaflets, in breach of his right to impart information; their recourse to physical force and use of handcuffs; taking him to the police station; and his prosecution under the CAO. 18.  By a judgment of 5 April 2013 the Voroshilovskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don dismissed his claims. The court accepted the applicant’s submission that he had staged a static demonstration (пикетирование), which consisted of distribution of leaflets. It considered that the applicant had attempted to escape during the identity check and had been arrested, and that the use of force and handcuffs had complied with the relevant regulations. Further, the court dismissed the applicant’s allegation that the administrative proceedings against him had been discontinued, on the grounds that no formal decision had been issued. The court also relied on the statements of a representative of the regional department of the Ministry of the Interior in that regard, who had testified that the administrative-offence file against the applicant had been lost. However, the police had been reassembling the file at the time of the trial. 19.  On the basis of several testimonies, the District Court concluded as follows:
“In the present case the police officers intended to put an end to the breach of public order, consisting of [showing] disrespect to society accompanied by the use of foul language in a public place [by the applicant], disturbing citizens in an insulting manner and refusing to obey an order by a public official ... The police officers ... acted within their powers and did not violate the applicant’s rights. Nor did they cause any impediment to the exercise of any such rights ...” 20.  The applicant appealed against the judgment. He contended that the finding of the first-instance court had been based on the pending charge against him and the wording of Article 20.1 of the CAO, and had thus violated his right to be presumed innocent. Furthermore, in the applicant’s view, the court had failed to specify the factual details concerning his showing of “disrespect to society”, the content and the alleged victims of the foul language allegedly used by him, the details of his “disturbing others” and “the order by a public official” and the lawfulness of any such order. 21.  On 17 June 2013 the Rostov Regional Court dismissed the appeal, endorsing the reasoning of the first-instance judgment. The court pointed out that the circumstances concerning the applicant’s guilt in the commission of an administrative offence should be discussed in the context of the administrative offence proceedings.