Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13+11 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 11+10 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

On 19 January 2009 Mr Stanislav Markelov, a well-known human rights lawyer, and Ms Anastatsia Baburova, a journalist, were shot dead in Moscow.

The applicant and Mr A. decided to hold a commemoration “picket” (“пикет”) near the Memorial to the Victims of Political Repression in Yuri Gagarin Park, Samara, on 31 January 2009. The location was symbolic, and was chosen by them to emphasise that, in their opinion, the murders of Mr Markelov and Ms Baburova were cases of politically motivated repression.

On 27 January 2009 the applicant and Mr A. notified the Samara Town Administration of the date, time, place and purposes of the “picket”. The event was scheduled to take place from noon to 2 p.m. on 31 January 2009, with seven people expected to take part.

On the same day the Samara Town Administration sent a telegram and a letter to the applicant, refusing to approve the venue. The town administration noted that Yuri Gagarin Park was a popular place of recreation and many families would be walking there with their small children on Saturday, 31 January 2009. The “picket” might pose a danger to their health and life. They proposed that the organisers change the location and time of the event. They also warned the applicant and Mr A. that they might be held liable under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code for a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events. According to the Government, a copy of the Mayor’s decree of 7 October 2007 listing the locations in Samara suitable for public events was attached to the letter. The Government did not submit a copy of the letter or the decree.

Given that the location and date were important to them, and fearing that holding the event at the chosen location without the authorities’ approval might result in arrests and administrative proceedings against the participants, the applicant and Mr A. decided to cancel the seven-person “picket” they had planned. Instead, the applicant held a solo “picket”, for which no notification was required.

On 12 February 2009 the applicant challenged the decision of 27 January 2009 before the Leninskiy District Court of Samara. He complained that the decision had amounted to a ban on the event, because the authorities had not proposed any alternative venue or time for it.

On 3 April 2009 the Leninskiy District Court rejected his complaint. It found that in its decision of 27 January 2009 the Samara authorities had merely proposed that the applicant should change the location and time of the event, rather than imposing a ban on it. That decision had therefore not violated the applicant’s rights. It had also been lawful. On 3 June 2009 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment of 3 April 2009 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

The applicant is a gay rights activist.

On 13 August 2009 the applicant, together with Ms F. and Mr B., notified the Prefect of the Northern Administrative District of Moscow of their intention to hold a “picket” from 1 to 2 p.m. on 24 August 2009 in front of the Prefect’s office on Timiryazev Street, which twenty-five people were expected to attend. The aim of the event was to call for the Prefect’s resignation “in connection with his efforts to incite hatred and enmity towards various social groups, and his failure to comply with electoral laws”.

On 17 August 2009 the Prefect of the Northern Administrative District of Moscow refused to approve the venue, noting that another public event was planned at the same location from 1 to 2 p.m. on 24 August 2009.

On 20 August 2009 the applicant, Ms F. and Mr B. lodged a new notification proposing to hold the event at any time between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m. on 24 or 25 August 2009. An official from the Prefect’s office stamped the notification with a seal that bore the following inscription in red: “to be handed to the applicant personally”.

According to the applicant, on 21 August 2009 he went to the Prefect’s office to collect the decision. However, the official refused to hand over the decision, explaining that it had been dispatched by post. The applicant never received the letter and had to cancel the event.

On 26 August 2009 the applicant challenged the Prefect’s refusal to approve the venue before the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow.

On 30 October 2009 the Koptevskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaints. It found that by his decision of 20 August 2009 the Prefect had agreed to the holding of the “picket” on 25 August 2009 from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. That decision had been sent to the applicant by post. The letter had not been delivered because the applicant did not live at the indicated address. The applicant’s argument that the stamp indicated that the decision was to be handed to him personally was unconvincing. As Russian law did not establish any procedure for notifying applicants of such decisions, the Prefect’s office had been entitled to choose any notification method, including sending the decision by post. The fact that the letter had not been delivered did not render the authorities’ actions unlawful. Lastly, the court found that the applicant had not proved that the Prefect’s office had refused to give him the decision when he had gone to collect it, although there is no evidence in the judgment that the Prefect’s representative contested that matter.

The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that the Prefect’s office had at first informed him that the decision would be handed over to him personally, but had then refused to give it to him. The letter containing that decision had not arrived at the local post office until the day of the planned event. Even if he had received the letter, it would no longer have been possible to hold the event.

On 25 February 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

On 13 August 2009 the applicant, together with Ms F. and Mr B., notified the Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow of their intention to hold a “picket” from 1 to 2 p.m. on 24 August 2009 in Novopushkinskiy Park, with twenty-five people expected to take part. The aims of the event were the same as those of the “picket” in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow.

On the same day a deputy prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow informed the applicant that another public event was planned at the same location and time, and proposed that another venue be chosen.

On 20 August 2009 the applicant, Ms F. and Mr B. stated their readiness to accept another venue for their event, and proposed five alternative sites for the Prefect to choose from.

On the same day the deputy prefect refused to approve any of the locations proposed by the applicant, noting that the applicant, Ms F. and Mr B. were the organisers of another “picket” at the same time in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow.

On 26 August 2009 the applicant challenged that refusal before the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow. He submitted, in particular, that the deputy prefect’s finding that he was the organiser of another “picket” on the same day in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow was incorrect, because the authorities had not agreed to that “picket”.

On 2 November 2009 the Taganskiy District Court rejected his complaint. It found, in particular, that the proposal to change the location of the “picket” was lawful because a presentation of the new IKEA catalogue had been planned in Novopushkinskiy Park at the same time. The refusal to agree to the “picket” at other venues had also been lawful because the applicant had submitted two notifications in respect of “pickets” at two different locations, in the Central and Northern Administrative Districts, to be held at the same time. Although the applicant had indeed been informed by the Prefect of the Northern Administrative District that he could not hold a “picket” at the proposed location, he could still have held a “picket” at another venue in the Northern Administrative District. Had he done so, it would have been impossible for him to organise a “picket” to be held in the Central Administrative District at the same time. The refusal to agree to the “picket” in the Central Administrative District had therefore been well reasoned.

The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that domestic law made no provision for a public event to be banned on the ground that two notifications had been lodged by the same person. The refusal to approve the “picket” had therefore been unlawful. He had lodged two notifications with the aim of proposing alternative venues for the event. If both of them had been approved, he would have chosen one of the approved sites. He relied on Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the Convention.

On 6 April 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 2 November 2009 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

The two applicants are Mr Ponomarev (the first applicant) and Mr Ikhlov (the second applicant).

The applicants decided to commemorate the anniversary of the murder of Mr Stanislav Markelov and Ms Anastatsia Baburova (see paragraph 5 above).

On 24 December 2009 the first applicant, Ms A. and Mr S. notified the Moscow Government of their intention to hold a march and a meeting on 19 January 2010 in the centre of Moscow, which 400 people were expected to attend. The aims of the march and the meeting were as follows:

“To commemorate the human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov, the journalist Anastasia Baburova and other victims of ideological and political terror;

To protest against politically and ideologically motivated murders, against racism, ethnic and religious hatred, and against recourse to chauvinism and xenophobia in politics and social life.”

The second applicant intended to attend the march and the meeting.

On 11 January 2010 the Moscow Security Department replied that, in accordance with the Public Events Act, the notification had to be submitted no earlier than fifteen days and no later than ten days before the intended public event. As the organisers had submitted their notification outside that time-limit, they were not allowed to hold the march and the meeting.

On 13 January 2010 the applicants challenged the decision of 11 January 2010 before the Tverskoy District Court. They submitted that the date of the meeting and the march was very important for them because it was the anniversary of the murders. No other date would have the same impact. The time-limit for lodging a notification fell between 4 and 9 January 2010. However, because of the New Year and the Christmas holidays, the days from 1 to 10 January were officially non-working days, so it was not possible to lodge a notification within the time-limit established by law. The applicants had accordingly lodged the notification on 24 December 2009, that is fifteen working days before the intended march and meeting. Any other interpretation of the domestic law would mean that no public events could be held in the period from 10 to 21 January every year. They also argued that the Moscow Security Department had not observed the three-day time-limit for a reply established by the domestic law.

On 27 February 2010 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the applicants’ complaints. It found that the decision of 11 January 2010 had been lawful. The applicants had not observed the time-limit for lodging a notification established by domestic law and were not therefore entitled to hold the march and the meeting. Moreover, given that they had later been allowed to hold a “picket” on the same day, their freedom of assembly had not been violated.

The applicants appealed. They reiterated their previous arguments and added that the “picket” approved by the authorities was not an adequate substitute for a meeting and a march. Firstly, the authorities had agreed to an event with 200 people attending instead of 400. And secondly, and more importantly, the use of sound amplifying equipment was not allowed during a “picket”, which had prevented the organisers and participants from making public speeches.

On 10 June 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27 February 2010 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

The three applicants are Mr Ponomarev (the first applicant), Mr Ikhlov (the second applicant) and Mr Udaltsov (the third applicant).

On 5 March 2010 the first and third applicants notified the Moscow Government of their intention to hold a march and a meeting on 20 March 2010. The aim was “to protest against violations of the civil and social rights of the residents of Moscow and the Moscow Region in the spheres of town planning, land distribution, environmental conditions, housing and communal services, and judicial protection”. The march was scheduled to start at 2.30 p.m. at Tverskoy Boulevard, from where the participants were to march to Pushkin Square. The notification stated that the participants would cross Tverskaya Street by the underground passage. A meeting would be held at Pushkin Square from 3.30 to 5 p.m. It was expected that 300 people would take part in the march and the meeting. The second applicant intended to attend the meeting and the march.

The Moscow Government forwarded the notification to the Moscow Transport Department, which concluded on 10 March 2010 that the march was likely to cause traffic delays and disrupt public transport when it crossed Tverskaya Street. It was therefore necessary to change the route of the march. The Moscow Transport Department then forwarded the notification to the Moscow Security Department.

On 12 March 2010 a deputy head of the Moscow Security Department proposed that the applicants should cancel the march and hold a meeting at Bolotnaya Square in order to “avoid any interference with the normal functioning of the public utility services, the activities of commercial organisations, traffic or the interests of citizens not taking part in public events”.

On 15 March 2010 the first and third applicants asked the Moscow Security Department either to propose an alternative route for the march or to agree to hold the meeting in Pushkin Square, in which case they were ready to forgo the march. They argued that the Moscow Security Department had not advanced any reasons in support of their finding that the march and the meeting might interfere with traffic or the activities of commercial organisations. They also noted that two meetings had recently been held in Pushkin Square and had not caused any disruption.

The Moscow Security Department replied that the march and the meeting in Pushkin Square had not been given official approval, and warned the applicants that measures would be taken to prevent them from holding the events.

On 15 March 2010 the applicants challenged the decision of 12 March 2010 before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. They submitted that the Moscow Government had not observed the statutory time-limit of three days for giving a reply and had failed to propose an alternative venue for the march. The Moscow authorities had not put forward weighty reasons for their proposal to cancel the march and change the venue of the meeting. Neither the march nor the meeting would have interfered with the normal life of the city if held at the location chosen by the applicants, because no blocking off of traffic would have been necessary. They reiterated that two meetings had recently been held in Pushkin Square with official approval; they had gone ahead without any trouble or disruption of normal life for residents. The applicants asked for an injunction for the Moscow Government to agree to the meeting and the march. They also requested that their complaint be examined before the planned meeting date.

According to the Government, the applicants’ complaint, sent by post, was received by the District Court on 19 March 2010.

At about 3.30 p.m. on 20 March 2010 about 300 people, including the applicants, gathered in Pushkin Square. The police issued a warning, through loudspeakers, that the meeting was unlawful and that the participants should disperse. The meeting was then dispersed by force by the police and many of those present were arrested.

On 9 April 2010 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the applicants’ complaints, finding that the decision of 12 March 2010 had been lawful. The text of the judgment did not contain any reply to the applicants’ argument that the Moscow Government had not observed the statutory timelimit of three days for a reply.

On 23 September 2010 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 9 April 2010 on appeal and allowed the applicants’ complaints. It found that the District Court had not examined whether there existed a factual basis for the finding that the meeting and the march planned by the applicants would interfere with the normal life of the city. The Moscow Government had not submitted any evidence in support of that finding. The decision of 12 March 2010 had not therefore been well reasoned. At the same time, it was impossible to allow the request for an injunction to agree to the meeting and the march because the planned date had passed months ago.

On 20 October 2010 the Moscow Government lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 23 September 2010. It argued that it had submitted evidence in support of the decision not to agree to the march and the meeting planned by the applicants, in the form of a letter from the Moscow Transport Department dated 10 March 2010 stating that the march might cause delays in public transport when it crossed Tverskaya Street. He further argued that it would be difficult for 300 participants to cross Tverskaya Street by the underground passage, which was always crowded with passers-by and street vendors. An alternative venue for the meeting had been proposed.

On 1 November 2010 the applicants submitted in reply that the march had been scheduled during a weekend, when vehicular and pedestrian traffic was insignificant. Crossing Tverskaya Street by the underground passage would therefore not have caused any inconvenience to passers-by or street vendors or their clients, or caused delays in public transport. In any event, traffic in the centre of Moscow was often blocked by the authorities to permit the staging of sports or cultural events.

On 12 November 2010 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court quashed the appeal judgment of 23 September 2010 and upheld the judgment of 9 April 2010 rejecting the applicants’ complaints. It found that the Moscow Government’s refusal to agree to the march and the meeting had been lawful and well reasoned. It would have been impossible for the participants in the march to cross Tverskaya Street by the underground passage, which was always crowded with passers-by and street vendors. The participants would therefore have had to cross the road, thereby delaying public transport. To protect the interests of citizens who did not take part in public events, the Moscow Government had proposed an alternative venue for the meeting, at the same time requiring the organisers to cancel the march. That decision had not violated the applicants’ rights.

According to the applicants, at the end of the hearing of 12 November 2010 only the operative part of the judgment had been read out by the bailiffs. The reasoned judgment had never been read out publicly and had been sent to the applicants by post on 16 March 2011. The applicants’ account was disputed by the Government, who submitted that the entire text of the judgment had been read out publicly at the end of the hearing.

The four applicants are Ms Yefremenkova (the first applicant), Mr Milkov (the second applicant), Mr Gavrikov (the third applicant) and Mr Sheremetyev (the fourth applicant).

The applicants are gay human rights activists.

On 15 June 2010 the applicants notified the St Petersburg Security Department of their intention to hold a Gay Pride march and a subsequent meeting on 26 June 2010, the anniversary of the start of the gay rights movement in the United States of America (“the USA”) on 26 June 1969. The march and the meeting were scheduled to take place in the centre of St Petersburg, with 500 to 600 people expected to attend. The aim was “to draw the attention of society to the violations of the rights of homosexuals, and the attention of society and the authorities to the widespread discrimination that exists against homosexuals and to homophobia, fascism and xenophobia”.

On 17 June 2010 the St Petersburg Security Department refused to allow the meeting and the march. It noted that the route chosen by the applicants was a busy road with many parked cars, and construction work was under way. The march might therefore obstruct road and pedestrian traffic and distract drivers, which might in turn cause road accidents. Moreover, another meeting had already been approved in the same place at the same time. Finally, the applicants’ meeting was scheduled to take place in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court building. In accordance with section 8 of the Public Events Act it was prohibited to hold public events in the vicinity of court buildings. The Security Department proposed that the applicants change the venue of their march and meeting, and warned them that if they failed to obtain the authorities’ approval for another venue they would not be entitled to organise the planned events.

On 18 June 2010 the applicants proposed two alternative venues for the march and subsequent meeting. They also informed the Security Department of their readiness to abandon the march and simply hold a meeting, and proposed a location for the meeting.

On 21 June 2010 the St Petersburg Security Department again refused to agree to the meeting and the march. It found that the venues chosen by the applicants were not suitable for the following reasons: one of the locations was not large enough to accommodate 600 people, and the participants would hinder access to a bus stop, a shop and a bicycle rental service. Moreover, “Youth Day” celebrations were planned in the nearby park. At another venue the march might obstruct the traffic and cause traffic jams on the road which government delegations and guests would be taking on 26 June 2010 to attend the celebrations of the 300th anniversary of the town of Tsarskoe Selo. Moreover, the march might hinder citizens’ access to their homes or shops. Lastly, on the same day the end of the school year would be being celebrated by students on the nearby campus. The third location proposed by the applicants was not suitable either, because celebrations to mark the end of the school year would be held there too. The Security Department proposed that the applicants change the venue of the march and meeting.

The first applicant was informed about that decision on the evening of 22 June 2010 and received a copy of it on the morning of 23 June 2010.

On 23 June 2010 the applicants proposed three new alternative venues to the St Petersburg Security Department, for either a march and a meeting or a meeting only.

On the same day the St Petersburg Security Department refused to approve the meeting and the march for a third time. It found that the applicant’s reply had been submitted outside the time-limit established by section 5 of the Public Events Act. That section provided that a reply to the authorities’ proposal to change the location of the event should be submitted no later than three days before the intended event. Having missed that deadline, the applicants were not entitled to hold the meeting and the march on 26 June 2010.

Despairing of obtaining official approval for a march and a meeting, on 22 June 2010 the applicants notified the Administrations of the Petrogradskiy, Tsentralniy, Moskovskiy and Vasileostrovskiy Districts of St Petersburg of their intention to hold a “picket” with the same aims on 26 June 2010. In each Administrative District a location was chosen to accommodate about forty participants.

On the same day the Petrogradskiy District Administration refused to agree to the “picket” because cultural and sports events were scheduled to be held at the location chosen by the applicants. Moreover, the applicants had not obtained the consent of the private sports complex in whose grounds the intended “picket” was to take place. The Moskovskiy District Administration refused to agree to the “picket” because a rock festival and a circus inauguration event were scheduled to take place at the location chosen by the applicants. The Vasileostrovskiy District Administration did not allow the “picket” because a film was scheduled to be shot in that district all day, including at the location selected by the applicants. Lastly, on 23 June 2010 the Tsentralniy District Administration also refused to agree to the “picket” because another (unspecified) event had already been approved at the same location and time as the applicants’ event. Each District Administration proposed that the applicants change the location or time of their “picket”.

On 26 June 2010 the Young Guard, the youth wing of the progovernment party United Russia, organised a meeting in support of “family and traditional family values”. That meeting was approved by the authorities and was held at one of the locations which, when proposed by the applicants for their Gay Pride march, had been rejected as unsuitable by the St Petersburg Security Department’s decision of 17 June 2010.

On 24 June 2010 the first applicant challenged the St Petersburg Security Department’s decisions of 17 and 21 June 2010 before the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg. She complained that the Security Department had refused, for various reasons, to approve any of the venues proposed by the organisers for the march and the meeting. It was significant that the authorities alone were in possession of full and updated information about all construction work and other events planned in the city. That being so, the authorities themselves should have proposed a venue where the march and the meeting could take place. They had not, however, made any such proposal, confining their decisions to rejecting all the numerous locations proposed by the organisers. The first applicant also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation.

The first hearing was scheduled for 2 July 2010.

On that day the first applicant submitted additional arguments in writing. She complained that the Security Department’s decision of 23 June 2010 had been unlawful and had also not been well reasoned. She argued, firstly, that the applicants’ reply to the Security Department’s proposal to change the venue had been submitted within the three-day timelimit established by the Public Events Act. To be precise, it had been lodged on 23 June 2010, three days before the intended march, which was scheduled for 26 June 2010. Secondly, the applicants could not have replied earlier because they had not received the Security Department’s decision of 21 June 2010, requiring them to change the venue, until 23 June 2010. The first applicant further submitted that the reasons advanced by the Security Department in its decisions of 17 and 21 June 2010 had not been sufficient. The Security Department had referred to certain inconveniences that might be caused by the march and the meeting, such as obstructing the traffic, or to other events planned in the city on the same day. However, under section 12 of the Public Events Act it was the authorities’ responsibility to take steps to ensure that public order was respected and that public events could proceed smoothly, including by regulating or blocking traffic. She also referred to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 2 April 2009 (see paragraphs 255 to 259 below), which held that neither logistical difficulties that might be encountered by the authorities, nor a certain level of disruption of the ordinary life of citizens, could serve as a valid reason for refusing to approve a public event.

On 13 July 2010 the Smolninskiy District Court rejected the first applicant’s complaints. It found that the Security Department had provided reasons for its decisions of 17 and 21 June 2010 refusing to agree to the meeting and the march. Domestic law did not impose an obligation on an authority refusing to approve a location or time for a public event to propose an alternative location or time. As to the decision of 23 June 2010, the court found that it had also been lawful as the first applicant had missed the deadline for replying to the proposal to change the venue. She had not proved that she had been notified belatedly of the decision of 21 June 2010; the list of her incoming calls showing that she had indeed received a call from the Security Department late in the evening of 22 June 2010 could not serve as proof of the belated notification. Lastly, given that the Security Department had not banned the meeting and march planned by the first applicant, but had merely required her to change the venue, her freedom of assembly had not been breached.

On 30 August 2010 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

On different dates in August, September and November 2010 the first applicant challenged the refusals of the authorities of the Petrogradskiy, Tsentralniy, Moskovskiy and Vasileostrovskiy Districts of St Petersburg to allow the “pickets”, arguing that the refusals had not been substantiated by weighty reasons and that the district authorities had not proposed alternative venues for the “pickets”. She also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation.

On 6 October 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg held that the decision of 23 June 2010 of the Tsentralniy District Administration had been unlawful. It found that the other event to which the District Administration had referred in its decision was due to finish before the applicant’s “picket” was due to begin. The authorities’ refusal had not therefore been well reasoned. Further, relying on the Constitutional Court’s decision of 2 April 2009, the District Court found that, when refusing to approve a venue chosen by the organisers, the district administration had an obligation to propose an alternative venue. No other venue had been proposed, however.

On 18 October 2010 the Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg held that the Petrogradskiy District Administration’s decision of 22 June 2010 had been unlawful. It found that the reasons advanced by the district authorities for their refusal to allow the “picket” at the location and time chosen by the applicants had been valid. In particular, it had been established that on 26 June 2010 the location in question was the meeting point for the departure of children to sports camps. An assembly in favour of homosexual rights “would not have furthered the development of their morals”. By contrast, the requirement to obtain the consent of the private sports complex in the grounds of which the intended “picket” was to take place had no basis in domestic law. Nor could concerns for public order and the safety of the participants serve as a valid reason for the refusal to allow the event, because it was the joint responsibility of the authorities and the organisers to guarantee public order and the safety of all involved. At the same time, the district authorities had not proposed an alternative location or time for the “picket”, which it was obliged to do pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 2 April 2009. The failure to propose an alternative location or time had deprived the first applicant of any opportunity to have the event approved. Lastly, the District Court noted that it was no longer possible to remedy the violation of the first applicant’s rights because the planned date had passed months earlier. On 25 November 2010 the St Petersburg City Court upheld that judgment on appeal.

On 24 November 2010 the Moskovskiy District Court of St Petersburg held that the decision of the Moskovskiy District Administration of 22 June 2010 had also been unlawful. Although the district authorities’ refusal to approve the location and time of the “picket” chosen by the applicants had been well reasoned, the district authorities had not fulfilled their obligation to propose an alternative location or time for the event. The court ordered the District Administration to propose a suitable alternative location and time for the “picket”. On 17 January 2011 the St Petersburg City Court upheld that judgment on appeal.

On 6 December 2010 the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg held that the decision of 22 June 2010 of the Vasileostrovskiy District Administration had also been unlawful. It found that the district authorities should have found out precisely at which locations the film shooting was scheduled to take place. Depending on that information, they should either have agreed to the “picket” being held at the location chosen by the applicants or have proposed an alternative location.

On 10 June 2011 the second, third and fourth applicants and Mr T. notified the Vasileostrovskiy District Administration of their intention to hold a Gay Pride march and a meeting on 25 June 2011, which 100 people were expected to attend. The aim of the meeting and the march was “to draw the attention of society and the authorities to the violations of the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people and to the need to introduce a statutory prohibition on discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity”.

On 14 June 2011 the Vasileostrovskiy District Administration refused to agree to the march and the meeting. They found that the events would hinder the passage of pedestrians and vehicles and might also distract drivers, causing road accidents. Moreover, a guided tour of the district for children was planned on 25 June 2011 and the applicants’ meeting would disrupt it. The district authorities proposed another location for the meeting and the march, and informed the applicants that the area would be closed to traffic for their convenience.

On 16 June 2011 the applicants replied that the venue proposed by the district administration was unsuitable, because it was located in an industrial area among factories and warehouses and was difficult to reach. They proposed an alternative venue for the two events, which they said was separated from the road by a five-to-fifteen-metre-wide row of trees, which ruled out any risk of road accidents or hindrance to traffic. They would not be in the way of passers-by either, because there was a parallel pedestrian path which would remain free for passage. Lastly, the participants would cross the road at traffic lights, using a pedestrian crossing, which would make it unnecessary to close the area to traffic.

On 20 June 2011 the Vasileostrovskiy District Administration again refused to approve the venue chosen by the applicants, pointing out that work to install a temporary amusement park would be going on there. They also reiterated their arguments concerning the obstruction of traffic and the risk of road accidents. The district administration insisted that the applicants should organise the march and the meeting at the location proposed in the letter of 14 June 2011.

On 21 June 2011 the applicants agreed to hold the meeting and the march at the location proposed by the district authorities.

On the same day the Vasileostrovskiy District Administration refused to allow the march and the meeting at that location. The reason given was that the nearby power station was expecting a delivery of spare parts for boilers on 25 June 2011. The authorities proposed that the applicants choose another location for the march and the meeting.

On 12 September 2011 the third and fourth applicants challenged the Vasileostrovskiy District Administration’s decisions of 14, 20 and 21 June 2011 before the Vasileostrovskiy District Court of St Petersburg. They submitted that the reasons given by the district authorities for refusing to allow the meeting and the march were not convincing. They also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation.

On 14 November 2011 the Vasileostrovskiy District Court allowed the applicants’ complaints, finding that the Vasileostrovskiy District Administration’s decisions had not been well reasoned. It was the authorities’ and the organisers’ joint responsibility to ensure public order and the safety of participants and passers-by during the meeting and march. In their letter of 16 June 2011 the applicants had set out the measures they intended to take to avoid accidents and disruption to traffic. The district authorities had disregarded those arguments and insisted that the march should take place at a location of their choosing. However, before proposing that location the district authorities had not checked whether the location was suitable and available. As a result, when the applicants agreed to the location, the district authorities had refused to approve it, on the ground that it was unavailable. That refusal had been unlawful. The court ordered that the district administration give the meeting and the march planned by the applicants their approval.

On 12 January 2012 St Petersburg City Court examined the case on appeal. It quashed the decision ordering the Vasileostrovskiy District Administration to allow the meeting and the march, as the date scheduled for the events had passed months before. It was therefore no longer possible to remedy the violation of the applicant’s rights. The court upheld the remainder of the judgment of 14 November 2011, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

On 14 June 2011 the second, third and fourth applicants and Mr T. notified the St Petersburg Security Department of their intention to organise a Gay Pride march and a subsequent meeting on 25 June 2011 in the centre of St Petersburg, which 300 people were expected to attend. The aim of the meeting and march was the same as that of the events in the Vasileostrovskiy Administrative District.

On 15 June 2011 the St Petersburg Security Department refused to allow the meeting and the march, noting that along the route chosen by the applicants the pavement was narrow and the traffic heavy. The applicants’ march might therefore obstruct traffic and pedestrians and distract drivers, causing accidents. The proposed meeting venue was not suitable either, because a rehearsal for the Youth Day festivities would be taking place there on 25 June 2011. There was also a children’s playground nearby. The Security Department proposed that the applicants should hold the march and the meeting in the village of Novoselki, in the suburbs of St Petersburg.

On 20 June 2011 the applicants replied that the location proposed by the Security Department was unsuitable because it was located in a remote and sparsely populated village surrounded by a forest, 20 kilometres from the city centre. They proposed three alternative locations for the march and the meeting or for the meeting only and agreed to reduce the number of participants to 100 people.

On 21 June 2011 the St Petersburg Security Department again refused to approve the meeting and the march. A Harley Davidson motorbike parade was scheduled to take place at one of the proposed locations; the second location would be occupied by anti-drug campaigners; and the third location was not suitable because of landscaping work in progress there. The Security Department insisted that the applicants should hold the march in the village of Novoselki or propose another venue for approval.

On 12 September 2011 the third and fourth applicants challenged the St Petersburg Security Department’s decisions of 14 and 21 June 2011 before the Smolnenskiy District Court of St Petersburg. They complained that the refusals to allow the meeting and the march had not been substantiated by sufficient reasons. In particular, the police could have taken measures to control the traffic and thereby prevent road accidents. As to the Youth Day rehearsals, the motorbike parade and the anti-drug campaign, the Security Department could have proposed another time for the meeting and the march which would not have clashed with those events. The landscaping work had not been scheduled to last the entire day, so it would have been possible to organise the meeting after it was finished. The applicants further argued that any assembly in a public place inevitably caused a certain level of disruption to ordinary life. The public authorities and the population had to show a degree of tolerance towards peaceful assemblies in crowded places, because otherwise it would be impossible to hold an assembly at a time and location where it would draw public attention to social or political issues. Lastly, they submitted that the venue proposed by the Security Department was unsuitable because it was located in a sparsely populated area in the middle of a forest. It was therefore not the right venue to draw the attention of society and the authorities to the violation of homosexuals’ rights, because there would be no representatives of the authorities or the general public present. The applicants also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation.

On 3 October 2011 the Smolnenskiy District Court rejected the applicants’ complaints. The court held that domestic law did not impose any obligation on the authorities to submit evidence in support of their finding that the location chosen by the organisers was unsuitable. The reasons advanced by the authorities for refusing to approve a location were subjective and therefore not amenable to judicial review. It was significant that the St Petersburg Security Department had not banned the march and the meeting planned by the applicants. The proposal for a change of location had not breached the applicants’ rights. The applicants’ argument that the venue proposed by the Security Department was not suitable was unfounded.

On 12 January 2012 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

On 25 June 2011 the applicants participated in a Gay Pride march in the centre of St Petersburg. They were arrested and charged with the administrative offence of breaching the established procedure for the conduct of public events.

The five applicants are Mr Labudin (the first applicant), Mr Kosinov (the second applicant), Mr Khayrullin (the third applicant), Mr Grigoryev (the fourth applicant), and Mr Gorbunov (the fifth applicant).

On 28 April 2010 the first applicant, together with Mr O., notified the Kaliningrad Town Administration of their intention to hold a “picket” on 5 May 2010 from 5 to 6 p.m. on the pavement in front of the Kaliningrad Regional Interior Department headquarters. A hundred people were expected to attend. The aim of the event was to “support [President] Medvedyev’s national policy directed at fighting corruption, reforming the [police] system, detecting ‘werewolves in epaulettes’ (“оборотни в погонах”) and eradicating crime”. The other applicants intended to join in the “picket”.

On 30 April 2010 the Kaliningrad Town Administration refused to agree to the “picket”. They referred to the risk of terrorist acts during the Victory Day celebrations on 9 May and the days immediately preceding them, and proposed that the “picket” be held on any day after 9 May 2010.

On 5 May 2010 the first applicant and Mr O. agreed to postpone the event. They notified the authorities that it would be held on 14 May 2010 at the same location.

On 7 May 2010 the Kaliningrad Town Administration again refused to allow the “picket”. They pointed out that in recent times terrorist acts in the vicinity of police buildings, as well as other unlawful acts against police officers and members of the Federal Security Service, had become more frequent in Russia. Attempted terrorist acts had been committed by both professional terrorists and mentally unstable people. A “picket” in front of Department of the Interior headquarters might therefore be dangerous to the police and the participants. They proposed two alternative locations for the event.

On 11 May 2010 the first applicant and Mr O. replied that they considered the reasons given by the authorities for the change of venue unconvincing. No terrorist acts had ever been committed in the Kaliningrad Region. It was the responsibility of the police to prevent terrorist acts. They therefore insisted that the “picket” should take place in front of the Kaliningrad Regional Department of the Interior headquarters, but agreed to hold it across the road from the headquarters. They requested that the police take increased security measures to ensure the safety of the participants.

On 12 May 2010 the Kaliningrad Town Administration refused yet again to allow the “picket”. They noted that there was heavy traffic at the proposed location and maintained that the “picket” would block the passage of pedestrians. Moreover, given the risk of terrorist acts in the vicinity of buildings occupied by law-enforcement authorities, it would be impossible to ensure the safety of the event. They insisted that the “picket” should be held at one of the locations proposed by the authorities in their letter of 7 May 2010.

According to the Government, on the same day the first applicant was informed by telephone that he could come to the Administration headquarters to collect the Administration’s decision. According to the applicants, the first applicant received the decision of 12 May 2010 on 14 May 2010 in the afternoon. He therefore had no time to inform the participants that the event had not been given official approval.

Shortly before the beginning of the “picket”, which was scheduled to start at 5 p.m. on 14 May 2010, the first applicant was summoned to appear at the Kaliningrad Town Administration offices at 5 p.m. At the same time he was warned that if he went anywhere near the Kaliningrad Regional Interior Department headquarters he would immediately be arrested. The first applicant went to the Town Administration offices at the appointed time to discuss the organisation of the “picket”.

Meanwhile, at about 5 p.m. the third, fourth and fifth applicants went to the Kaliningrad Regional Interior Department headquarters as planned, where they were immediately arrested and taken to the Tsentralniy District police station, where they were held until the next morning.

The first applicant was later charged with organising an unlawful public event, an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code. The third, fourth and fifth applicants were charged with disobeying a lawful order of the police to stop an unauthorised “picket”, and with breaching the established procedure for conducting public events, offences under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 2 respectively of the Administrative Offences Code.

By judgments of 25 and 28 June and 9, 12 and 13 July 2010 a Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Tsentralniy District of Kaliningrad discontinued the administrative proceedings against the applicants for lack of evidence of an offence. The Justice of the Peace found that the “picket” had not in fact taken place. There had been no mass gathering of people, waving of placards, public speeches or voicing of demands on issues related to political, economic, social or cultural life in the country or issues related to foreign policy. Although several people, unaware of the fact that the “picket” had not been approved, had indeed approached the Kaliningrad Regional Interior Department headquarters, they had been immediately arrested by the police. The applicants had not therefore organised or participated in an unauthorised public event and had not committed an offence under Article 20.2 §§ 1 and 2 of the Administrative Offences Code. Accordingly, the order of the police to stop an unauthorised picket and to leave the vicinity of the Kaliningrad Regional Interior Department headquarters had been unlawful and had breached the applicants’ freedom of movement. The applicants could not therefore be considered as having disobeyed a lawful order of the police and were not guilty of an offence under Article 19.3 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code.

On 26 July 2010 the applicants challenged the Kaliningrad Town Administration’s refusals to allow the “picket” before the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad.

On 22 December 2010 the Tsentralniy District Court held that the Kaliningrad Town Administration’s refusals to agree to the “picket” had been lawful. The administration had found that the applicants’ “picket” might block the passage of vehicles and pedestrians and cause road accidents. It was also established that the Kaliningrad Regional Interior Department had warned the local authorities about the risk of terrorist acts and recommended that public events should not be authorised, especially at times when the police were busy ensuring public order at festive celebrations. The town administration had no legal obligation to verify that information.

On 23 March 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.

The four applicants are Mr Zhidenkov (the first applicant), Mr Zuyev (the second applicant), Ms Maryasina (the third applicant), and Mr Feldman (the fourth applicant).

On 5 March 2011 the second and third applicants notified the Kaliningrad Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting on 20 March 2011 at Victory Square in the centre of Kaliningrad, which 500 people were expected to attend. The aim of the meeting was to protest against a police state and demand the resignation of Prime Minister Putin.

On 9 March 2011 the Kaliningrad Town Administration refused to allow the meeting, explaining that on 20 March 2011 Victory Square was to be cleaned after the winter. They proposed that the meeting be held in a park in a residential district.

On 10 March 2011 the third applicant replied that the location proposed by the administration was unsuitable because it was too far from the town centre and lacked visibility. She suggested two alternative venues in the town centre for the meeting.

On 11 March 2011 the Kaliningrad Town Administration replied that spring cleaning and refurbishment work was scheduled at both of the locations suggested by the third applicant, and insisted that the meeting should be held in the park proposed by the authorities in their letter of 9 March 2011.

On 14 March 2011 the third applicant reiterated that the location proposed by the administration was unsuitable. She then proposed holding a “picket” instead of a meeting and reducing the number of participants to fifty. She suggested two possible locations for the “picket”: Victory Square and another location in the town centre.

On 17 March 2011 the Kaliningrad Town Administration refused to agree to the “picket”, reiterating that Victory Square was being cleaned and explaining that landscaping work was being carried out at the other location suggested by the third applicant. They again insisted that the “picket” should be held in the park mentioned in their letter of 9 March 2011.

On the same day the third applicant reiterated her argument that the park was unsuitable and proposed yet another location for the “picket”. That proposal was not examined by the Kaliningrad Town Administration until 21 March 2011, when they again insisted that the “picket” should be held in the park they had proposed.

On 20 March 2011 the applicants went to Victory Square and saw that no cleaning or other work was in progress there. They therefore decided to organise a “gathering” (“собрание”) of about twenty people to protest against what they described as a police state. The gathering lasted for about an hour. According to the Government, the police issued a warning that the gathering was unlawful and required the participants to disperse. According to the applicants, no warning was given to the participants. The gathering was eventually dispersed by force.

On the same day the applicants were charged with breach of the established procedure for conducting public events, an offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the Administrative Offences Code.

By judgments of 21, 25 and 26 April 2011 the Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Tsentralniy District of Kaliningrad found the applicants guilty as charged. She found that they had taken part in a gathering which had not received official approval from the authorities. Their argument that no approval was required for gatherings had no basis in domestic law. Section 7 of the Public Events Act provided that all events, except “gatherings” and “pickets” involving only one participant, required prior approval by the authorities (see paragraph 226 below). As the gathering of 20 March 2011 had involved more than one participant, the authorities’ approval had been required. However, the Kaliningrad Town Administration had refused to approve a meeting or a “picket” planned by the applicants, and no notification of a gathering had been submitted by them. The gathering of 20 March 2011 had therefore been unlawful. The Justice of the Peace ordered the first, second and fourth applicants to pay a fine of 500 Russian roubles (RUB, about 12 euros (EUR)) each, and the third applicant to pay a fine of RUB 1,000 (about EUR 24). The Justice of the Peace also warned the applicants that if they failed to pay the fines within thirty days they might be charged with non-payment of an administrative fine, an offence under Article 20.25 of the Administrative Offences Code, punishable with either a doubling of the fine or up to fifteen days’ administrative arrest.

The applicants appealed. They submitted that the Justice of the Peace had incorrectly interpreted section 7 of the Public Events Act. It was impossible to hold “a gathering involving one person”, as the Public Events Act defined a “gathering” as “an assembly of citizens” (see paragraph 219 below). It was therefore logical that the phrase “involving one person” referred to “pickets” only and did not concern “gatherings”. They were therefore not required to notify the authorities about the gathering.

By judgments of 20, 22 and 27 June and 6 July 2011 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad upheld the judgments of 21, 25 and 26 April 2011 on appeal, finding that they had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

On 27 October 2011 the Tsentralniy District Court of Kaliningrad found that the Kaliningrad Town Administration’s refusals to agree to the meeting and the “picket” had been lawful and well reasoned. On 18 January 2012 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

The four applicants are Mr Nagibin (the first applicant), Mr Yelizarov (the second applicant), Mr Batyy (the third applicant) and Ms Moshiyan (the fourth applicant).

The applicants are supporters of the “Strategy-31” movement. “Strategy-31” is a series of civic protests in support of the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by Article 31 of the Russian Constitution. The protests are held on the 31st of every month with thirty-one days, in Moscow and about twenty other Russian cities, such as St Petersburg, Arkhangelsk, Vladivostok, Yekaterinburg, Kemerovo and Irkutsk.

“Strategy-31” was initiated by Mr E. Limonov, founder of the National Bolshevik Party and one of the leaders of The Other Russia, a coalition of opposition movements. It was subsequently supported by many prominent Russian human rights organisations, including the Moscow Helsinki Group, the Memorial Human Rights Centre, and other public and political movements and associations.

The applicants are the leaders of the Rostov-on-Don section of the movement.

On 2 June 2009 the first and third applicants notified the Rostovon-Don Town Administration of their intention to organise a “picket” from 7 to 9 p.m. on 12 June 2009 (Russia Day, a national holiday) in the centre of Rostov-on-Don, near the Lenin monument in front of the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration headquarters. About thirty people were expected to attend. The aim of the event was to protest against the ineffective economic policies of the Prime Minister, Mr Putin, and the resulting increase in unemployment, as well as against violations of press freedom, persecution of political prisoners, lack of independence of the judiciary, and lack of free elections and political pluralism. They intended to collect signatures in support of a petition calling on Mr Putin to resign.

On 4 June 2009 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to agree to the “picket” on the grounds that festivities would be taking place at the location chosen by the applicants. It further reasoned:

“Your picket and your slogan ‘Russia against Putin’ might trigger a hostile reaction from the many supporters of one of the leaders of the Russian State and fuel unrest that might jeopardise the safety and health of the participants in the picket.”

The town administration further noted that there were reasons to believe that some of the participants in the meeting might commit breaches of public order, as had already happened at meetings held by other organisers. They therefore proposed that the applicants hold their “picket” near the Sports Centre.

On 8 June 2009 the first and third applicants agreed to hold the event near the Sports Centre. According to the applicants, they had accepted the authorities’ proposal because a rock concert had been scheduled near the Sports Centre at the same time, which would attract large numbers of people and thereby make their protest visible.

On the same day the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to agree to the “picket”, noting that a rock concert was scheduled to take place in the Sports Centre. The area round the Sports Centre would therefore be occupied by the spectators and their cars. The authorities therefore proposed that the applicants hold their event from 3.30 to 5.30 p.m. According to the applicants, they were informed of that decision on 10 June 2009.

The applicants decided to cancel the “picket” because at that time the area near the Sports Centre would be deserted and few people could reasonably be expected to see it. Moreover, given that only two days remained before the planned event, the applicants had insufficient time to inform the participants and the mass media about the change of time.

The third applicant held a solo “picket” instead. Twenty minutes after the start of the solo “picket” he was arrested and taken to a police station.

On 3 September 2009 the first and third applicants challenged the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration’s decisions of 4 and 8 June 2009 before the Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don.

On 25 September 2009 the Sovetskiy District Court of RostovonDon rejected their complaints, finding that the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration’s decisions had been lawful. By not replying to the authorities’ proposal of 8 June 2009 the applicants had failed to fulfil their obligation to cooperate with the town administration. Moreover, the applicants had not proved that their rights had been breached by the Administration’s decisions. On 19 November 2009 the Rostov Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

The applicants notified the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings in the centre of Rostov-on-Don, near the Lenin monument, on 31 October 2009, 31 March, 31 May, 31 July and 31 August 2010.

The Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to allow the meetings, giving the following reasons. The meeting of 31 October 2009 was not possible, because another event was planned at the same venue and time, and all other central locations were also occupied. As to the meeting of 31 March 2010, the town administration referred to heavy pedestrian traffic round the Lenin monument and the inconvenience the meeting would cause to the citizens. The meetings of 31 May and 31 August 2010 were not agreed to because “pickets” organised by the Young Guard, the youth wing of the pro-government party United Russia, were scheduled to take place near the Lenin monument on those same days. The meeting of 31 July 2010 was not approved because a gathering of members of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia was planned at the same location and time.

On 18 October 2010 the first and second applicants notified the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from 6 to 7 p.m. on 31 October 2010 in the centre of Rostov-on-Don, near the Lenin monument, which fifty people were expected to attend.

On 19 October 2010 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to allow the meeting. They noted that another event was scheduled to take place at the same location and time. It therefore proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near the Sports Centre.

On 23 October 2010 the first applicant replied that the venue proposed by the Town Administration was unsuitable because it was located in a deserted area far from the town centre. He notified the town administration that they would like to take part in the other event near the Lenin monument, and asked for information about its aims and the names of the organisers.

On 28 October 2010 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration replied that it was not possible to hold two public events at the same location, because the applicants’ meeting might disrupt the other event. They warned the applicants that if they held a meeting near the Lenin monument they might be charged with organising an unlawful public event.

At 6 p.m. on 31 October 2010 the applicants and other persons went to the Lenin monument, where a public event organised by the Young Guard, the youth wing of the pro-government party United Russia, was in progress. By 6.30 the Young Guard’s event was over.

According to the Government, the police issued a warning to those people who remained near the Lenin monument that their continuing meeting was unlawful and required the participants to disperse. The meeting was then dispersed by force by the police.

At about 6.45 the second and third applicants were arrested near the Lenin monument and taken to the Leninskiy District police station; they arrived there at 8.30 p.m. At the police station administrative arrest reports and administrative offence reports were drawn up. The administrative offence reports mentioned that the second and third applicants were charged with disobeying a lawful order of the police, an offence under Article 19.3 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code. The second applicant was also charged with breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events, an offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the Administrative Offences Code. Afterwards the applicants were placed in a police cell, where they remained until 10.20 a.m. the next day.

On 1 November 2010 the Justice of the Peace of the 9th Court Circuit of the Pervomayskiy District of Rostov-on-Don found, by two separate judgments, the second applicant guilty of offences under Articles 19.3 § 1 and 20.2 § 2 of the Administrative Offences Code. He found that the second applicant had taken part in an unauthorised public event and had refused to obey an order by the police to follow them to a police station. He ordered the second applicant to pay a fine of RUB 2,000 (about EUR 47). By judgments of 24 November and 14 December 2010 the Pervomayskiy District Court upheld the judgments of 1 November 2010 on appeal.

On 1 November 2010 the Justice of the Peace of the 2nd Court Circuit of the Leninskiy District of Rostov-on-Don also found the third applicant guilty of an offence under Article 19.3 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code, in that he had attempted to prevent the police from arresting the organisers of the unlawful public event, in particular by grabbing the police officers by their uniforms and screaming. The third applicant was ordered to pay a fine of RUB 500 (about EUR 12). The third applicant appealed. He complained, in particular, that his arrest and detention had been unlawful. On 16 December 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don upheld the judgment of 1 November 2010 on appeal. It found, in particular, that the third applicant’s arrest and detention had been lawful under Article 27.5 of the Administrative Offences Code.

On 17 May 2011 the Pervomayskiy District Court of RostovonDon found that the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration’s refusals to approve the meeting planned by the applicants had been unlawful. Only ten people had been expected to attend the Young Guard event, while the applicant’s meeting had been attended by fifty people. There was sufficient space to accommodate both events near the Lenin monument. Moreover, the events overlapped in time only for half an hour, from 6 to 6.30 p.m. The Rostov-on-Don Town Administration’s argument that it was not possible to hold the two events at the same location was therefore unconvincing. Moreover, the location near the Sports Centre proposed by the Town Administration was indeed isolated and would not therefore permit the applicants’ meeting to attain its purposes. The District Court ordered the Town Administration to approve a meeting near the Lenin monument on a date to be chosen by the applicants.

On 14 July 2011 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It however overturned the order to approve a meeting on a date to be chosen by the applicants, finding that such an order was contrary to the principle of separation of powers between the judicial and the executive. The District Court had thus unduly interfered with the executive’s discretion to approve public events provided by law.

On 16 December 2010 the first applicant notified the RostovonDon Town Administration of his intention to organise a “picket” on the theme “Russia against Putin”, from 6 to 7 p.m. on 31 December 2010 in the centre of Rostov-on-Don, near the Lenin monument, which fifty people were expected to attend.

On 17 December 2010 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to agree to the “picket”, on the following grounds:

“The theme of the public event you plan to hold, “Russia against Putin”, aspires to create ... a negative image of a State official of the Russian Federation you allege is unpopular in Russia.

This allegation is false and misleading for the population, as it contradicts the results of many all-Russia opinion polls according to which V. V. Putin inspires confidence in at least a majority of the polled citizens of the country.

A picket with such a title would therefore amount to an action the sole purpose of which is to harm another person, which is contrary to Article 10 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation”.

The town administration further added that the New Year tree had been put in place and the New Year fair was scheduled to take place at the location chosen by the applicant. The “picket” might thus interfere with the New Year celebrations and inconvenience the merchants.

On 24 December 2010 the first applicant agreed to change the theme of the event, notified the administration that it would be called “Strategy 31” and asked them to give it their approval.

On 27 December 2010 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to allow the “picket”. They found that by modifying the title the organisers had changed the purpose of the event, so a new notification should have been submitted. They also reiterated that no public events were possible near the Lenin monument until 14 January 2011 because of the New Year tree installed there and the New Year celebrations scheduled to take place nearby.

On 29 December 2010 the first applicant challenged the decisions of 17 and 27 December 2010 before the Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don.

On 31 December 2010 the Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostovon-Don found that the decision of 17 December 2010 had been lawful and had not violated the applicant’s rights. The sole purpose of a public event entitled “Russia against Putin” was to harm another person. By contrast, the decision of 27 December 2010 had been unlawful. The requirement to submit a new notification had no basis in domestic law. Moreover, no celebrations were scheduled to take place near the Lenin monument from 6 p.m. to 7 p. m. on 31 December 2010. The finding that the “picket” might hinder the New Year celebrations had therefore been unsubstantiated. No other valid reasons for the refusal to allow the “picket” had been given.

At 6 p.m. that same day the first applicant and some other people gathered near the Lenin monument. They were surrounded by many policemen, whose number considerably exceeded their own.

At about 6.30 p.m. the police gave the first applicant a written warning which, referring to the decision of 27 December 2010 by the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration, stated that the “picket” was unlawful and that the organisers might be therefore held liable for extremist activities. The first applicant showed the police the court judgment of 31 December 2010 by which the decision of 27 December 2010 had been overturned. The police replied that the judgment was not yet final and warned the participants that they would be arrested if they started to chant slogans or wave banners. The protesters were forced to end the “picket”.

On 11 January 2011 the first applicant appealed against the judgment of 31 December 2010. He argued that the town administration’s decision of 17 December 2010 had violated his freedom of expression by prohibiting him from criticising Prime Minister Putin. The town administration also appealed, arguing that its decision of 27 December 2010 had been lawful, as the “picket” could have caused the New Year tree to be knocked over and created a fire hazard.

On 28 February 2011 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 31 December 2010 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

On 16 March 2010 the second and fourth applicants notified the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration of their intention to organise a meeting from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p. m. on 31 March 2010 in the centre of Rostov-on-Don, near the Lenin monument, which fifty people were expected to attend.

On 18 March 2010 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to allow the meeting, because pedestrian traffic in the area was dense in the evening and the applicants’ meeting might cause inconvenient disruptions. They proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near the Sports Centre.

On 22 March 2010 the second and fourth applicants replied that the proposed venue was unsuitable because it was located in a deserted place far from the town centre. They asked the authorities how many participants they could bring together without obstructing pedestrian traffic near the Lenin monument.

On 25 March 2010 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration declined to engage in dialogue on the question of freedom of assembly.

The first, second and fourth applicants challenged the RostovonDon Town Administration’s decision of 18 March 2010 before the Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don.

On 27 July 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don rejected their complaint, finding that the decision of 18 March 2010 had been lawful.

On 6 September 2010 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 27 July 2010 and remitted the case for fresh examination before the Sovetskiy District Court.

On 7 October 2010 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration argued that the area around the Lenin monument was one of the most crowded places in the town. In the rush hour 30 to 70 people per minute passed by the Lenin monument. Some of them might be distracted by the applicants’ meeting, thereby hindering the passage of other pedestrians. Moreover, the applicants had distributed leaflets calling on the town’s population to take part in the meeting. The possibility could not be ruled out, therefore, that more than fifty people would attend the meeting. That might have created a danger for public safety. By contrast, the venue near the Sports Centre was larger and could therefore accommodate more participants without disrupting pedestrian traffic or jeopardising public safety.

On 3 November 2010 the Sovetskiy District Court allowed the second and fourth applicants’ complaints, finding that the decision of 18 March 2010 had been unlawful. The Rostov-on-Don Town Administration had not provided valid reasons for its proposal that the meeting venue should be changed. Moreover, they had failed to refute the applicants’ argument that the proposed location near the Sports Centre would not serve the purposes of the meeting. The court ordered the Rostovon-Don Town Administration to allow a meeting of fifty people near the Lenin monument from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. on the 31st of the first month with thirty-one days following the entry into force of the judgment. The court rejected the first applicant’s complaints, however, finding that he had no standing to complain to a court because he had not signed the notification of 16 March 2010. His intention to participate in the meeting was irrelevant. It also rejected the applicants’ complaints about discrimination on the basis of political opinion. The fact that other meetings had been allowed at the same location was not sufficient to prove discrimination against the applicants.

On 20 January 2011 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.

On 22 February 2011 the applicants received a writ of execution.

On 16 March 2011 the applicants notified the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. on 31 March 2011 in the centre of Rostov-on-Don, near the Lenin monument, to be attended by fifty people. They enclosed the writ of execution.

On 18 March 2011 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration approved the meeting.

On 30 March 2011 the Interior Department of the Rostov Region, referring to the threat of terrorist or extremist acts, ordered the police to enclose the location near the Lenin monument with metal barriers, with two entry checkpoints. It further ordered that the participants in the meeting be searched with the aid of metal detectors.

On 31 March 2011 the police gave a written warning to the fourth applicant. It stated, in particular, that the meeting venue would be closed off with barriers. All participants would be searched at the entry checkpoints. If a person refused to be searched, he or she would not be allowed to enter the enclosed area. As the approved number of participants was fifty people, only fifty people would be allowed to enter. If more than fifty people tried to attend the meeting, the police would not let them in.

According to the applicants, the location near the Lenin monument was often used for meetings and other public events, but it was never fenced off on such occasions, and the entry of participants or passers-by was never restricted.

When the participants arrived at the Lenin monument at 6 p.m. they saw that the location had been fenced off with metal barriers. It is visible on the photographs of the event submitted by the applicants that police buses were parked along the barriers so that passers-by could not see what was going on in the enclosed area. Moreover, all passers-by were diverted by the police to another road. About 200 police officers were present. Although the enclosed area measured about 3,000 sq. m, only fifty people were allowed to enter and attend the meeting, after being searched at an entry checkpoint. According to the applicants, many would-be participants were not let in.

The first, third and fourth applicants complained to the Pervomayskiy District Court, claiming that the police had acted unlawfully and violated their freedom of assembly. In particular, the police were not entitled to limit the number of participants at the meeting. The venue near the Lenin monument could easily accommodate up to 800 people and the town administration had itself previously organised public events there with more than 100 participants. There was therefore no justification for limiting the number of participants to fifty people. Fencing the area off with metal barriers, blocking it with police buses, diverting the passers-by to other roads, searching the participants and not letting some of them in, had all also been unlawful and unjustified. The security measures taken by the police had made the meeting invisible to the public and thereby deprived it of its purpose. The reference by the police to the risk of terrorist attacks was unsubstantiated. There was no evidence that such a risk was higher on 31 March 2011 than on any other day. On 5 April 2011, for example, just five days later, an official public event had been held near the Lenin monument and the area had not been fenced off.

On 28 July 2011 the Pervomayskiy District Court rejected the applicants’ complaints. It found that the number of participants had been determined by the applicants themselves and had then been approved by a final judgment. The police had merely enforced that judgment, acting in accordance with the writ of execution. The enclosing of the venue had been justified by security considerations. The court also found that the first and third applicants had no standing to complain to a court, as they had not been parties to the judicial proceedings which had ended with the judgment of 20 January 2011 and had not been mentioned in the writ of execution. The fact that in the notification of 16 March 2011 they were listed as organisers of the meeting of 31 March 2011 was irrelevant.

On 22 September 2011 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

At 9.04 a.m. on 18 July 2011 the first, third and fourth applicants notified the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from 6 to 8 p.m. on 31 July 2011 near the Lenin monument in front of the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration building in the town centre. One hundred people were expected to attend. They specified that if that venue was already occupied they would agree to hold the meeting in front of the cinema fifty metres from the Lenin monument. The aim of the meeting was to protest against the violations by the town administration of the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 31 of the Russian Constitution, and against fraudulent practices in the elections to the State Duma.

On 20 July 2011 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to approve the meeting, stating that notification of another public event at the same location had already been submitted. The holding of two meetings at the same location might create tension and conflict. The authorities proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near the Public Library.

On 21 July 2011 the applicants replied that the Public Library was not a suitable venue, because it was too far away from the Town Administration, which was the target of their protest meeting. Moreover, the area in front of the Public Library was occupied by a large flowerbed and could not accommodate such a large meeting. It appears that they did not receive any reply.

On the same day, 21 July 2011, the applicants challenged the town administration’s decision of 20 July 2011 before the Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, repeating the arguments stated in their letter of 21 July 2011 and adding that they had submitted their notification on the first day submissions were open, four minutes after the opening of the town administration offices. It was impossible for anyone else to have submitted a notification before them. As to the possible tensions with the people attending the other meeting, the applicants noted that on 31 May 2011 two meetings, each attended by a hundred people, had been held simultaneously near the Lenin monument without any trouble or incidents.

On 28 July 2011 the Pervomayskiy District Court found that the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration’s decision of 20 July 2011 had been unlawful. Firstly, the authorities had not proved that it was impossible to hold the two events simultaneously. A series of “pickets” organised by the Young Guard, the youth wing of the United Russia party, from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day from 1 July to 15 August 2011, had been allowed by the town administration. There was however no information as to whether the “pickets” had been held as announced, that is for ten hours every day for a month and a half. In any event, according to the notification, the Young Guard’s “pickets” involved no more than twenty participants, while 100 people were to attend the applicants’ meeting. The venue near the Lenin monument had sufficient capacity to accommodate both events, especially taking into account that the applicants were willing to hold the event in front of the cinema, some distance from the Lenin monument. Secondly, the court found that the area outside the Public Library proposed by the town authorities, was not large enough to accommodate all the participants in the applicants’ meeting. A copy of that judgment was made available to the applicants on 2 August 2011.

On 31 July 2011 the applicants held a meeting near the Lenin monument, in spite of obstruction from the authorities and the police.

On 29 August 2011 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 28 July 2011 and rejected the applicants’ complaint. It found that the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration’s decision of 20 July 2011 had been lawful and well reasoned. As another public event had been scheduled at the same time and place as that chosen by the applicants, the town administration had proposed using the area outside the Public Library. This was a busy location in the town centre. The applicants had not explained how the flowerbeds would prevent them from gathering there.

At 9.07 a.m. on 16 August 2011 the first and fourth applicants notified the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings from 6 to 8 p.m. on 31 August, 31 October and 31 December 2011, and 31 January and 31 March 2012, in the centre of Rostov-on-Don, near the Lenin monument, which one hundred people were expected to attend. They specified that the location near the Town Administration and the dates were important to them, and stated that if that location was occupied they would agree to hold the meetings in front of the cinema fifty metres from the Lenin monument. The aim of the meetings was to protest against violations by the town administration of the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 31 of the Russian Constitution, and against fraudulent practices in the elections to the State Duma.

On 18 August 2011 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to approve the meetings. Regarding the meeting of 31 August 2011, they noted that notification of another public event at the same location had already been submitted. The holding of two meetings at the same location might create tension and conflict. They therefore proposed that the applicants’ meeting be held near the Public Library. As to the remaining meetings, the Town Administration found that the applicants had submitted the notifications too early, outside the time-limits established by the law.

On 19 August 2011 the first and fourth applicants replied that the venue outside the Public Library was unsuitable because it was too far away from the town administration, which was the target of their protest meeting. It was also not large enough to accommodate a meeting of 100 people. It appears that they did not receive any reply.

The applicants then challenged the town administration’s refusal to approve the meeting of 31 August 2011 before the Pervomayskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don, repeating the arguments stated in their letter of 19 August 2011 and adding that they had submitted their notification on the first day submissions were open, nine minutes after the opening of the town administration offices. It was impossible for anyone else to have submitted a notification before them. As to the possible tensions with the people attending the other meeting, the applicants noted that on 31 May 2011 two meetings, each attended by 100 people, had been held simultaneously near the Lenin monument without any trouble or incident. Finally, they complained that between October 2009 and July 2011 they had submitted eleven notifications, all of which had been rejected by the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration for various reasons.

On 26 August 2011 the Pervomayskiy District Court of RostovonDon rejected their complaints and found that the Rostov-on-Don authorities’ decision of 18 August 2011 had been lawful and well reasoned. Another person had notified the authorities of his intention to conduct a public opinion poll on 31 August 2011 at the same place and time. It was impossible to hold two public events simultaneously at the same place as altercations might arise between the participants. The alternative venue proposed by the authorities was a busy square in the town centre. It was large enough to accommodate the meeting and would serve the required purpose.

On 29 September 2011 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding it lawful, well reasoned and justified.

Meanwhile, also before the Pervomayskiy District Court, the applicants challenged the refusal to approve the meetings of 31 October and 31 December 2011 and 31 January and 31 March 2012. They complained that they had been subjected to discrimination on account of their political views. The Mayor of Rostov-on-Don was a member of the United Russia party. Events organised by that party or its youth wing had always been allowed to proceed. The Rostov-on-Don Town Administration had approved a series of “pickets”, to be held every day from 1 July to 15 August 2011, for a total of 460 hours, despite the fact that the notification had been submitted by the Young Guard outside the statutory time-limit. A similar notification submitted by the applicants concerning a series of “pickets” with a total duration of twenty hours, however, had been rejected by the town administration.

On 12 September 2011 the Pervomayskiy District Court rejected the applicants’ complaints as unsubstantiated. It found that the applicants’ notification was different from that submitted by the Young Guard, which concerned a single public event that lasted many days and was therefore allowed by law, while the applicants’ notification concerned a series of separate “pickets”, each of which required a separate notification to be submitted within the legal time-limit. The applicants had not observed that time-limit. There was therefore no evidence of discrimination on account of political opinion. It was also significant that the applicants were not members of any political party.

On 20 October 2011 the Rostov Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal, finding it lawful, well reasoned and justified.

In October and December 2011 the applicants notified the Rostovon-Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings on 31 October and 31 December 2011 near the Lenin monument in the town centre. The authorities agreed to the meeting on 31 October, but not to the one on 31 December, because a New Year tree had been installed near the Lenin monument.

At 9.10 a.m. on 16 January 2012 the first applicant notified the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration of his intention to hold a meeting from 6 to 8 p.m. on 31 January 2012 in the centre of Rostov-on-Don, near the Lenin monument, which 150 people were expected to attend. He specified that the location and time were important to him, but if the location was already occupied he would agree to hold the meeting in front of the cinema, fifty metres from the Lenin monument. The aim of the meeting was to protest against violations by the Town Administration of the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 31 of the Russian Constitution, and against fraudulent practices in the elections to the State Duma.

On 18 January 2012 the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to approve the meeting, because notification of a public event at the same location had already been submitted by someone else. The holding of two public events at the same location might create tension and conflict. They therefore proposed that the applicants’ meeting be held near the Public Library.

On 19 January 2012 the first applicant replied that the location near the Public Library was unsuitable and that it was important for him to hold the meeting in front of the Town Administration. He also stated that he had been the first to enter the town administration building on the morning of the first day of the time-limit. No one could have submitted a notification before him.

Having received no reply, on 25 January 2012 the first applicant challenged the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration decision of 18 January 2012 before the Pervomayskiy District Court, repeating the arguments set out in his letter of 19 January 2012. He also asked the court to examine the video recordings of the town administration building’s entrance cameras, which would prove that he had been the first to enter the building and submit a notification.

On 27 January 2012 a deputy head of the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration informed the first applicant that the entrance cameras had been switched off from 8.30 to 9.30 a.m. on 16 January 2012 for technical reasons.

On 30 January 2012 the Pervomayskiy District Court rejected the first applicant’s complaints. It found that Mr B. had submitted his notification before the first applicant had, at 9 a.m. As it was impossible to hold two public events at the same location, the town administration had agreed to Mr B.’s event and proposed an alternative venue to the first applicant. That venue was in a busy area of the town centre and therefore suited the purposes of the meeting. The decision of 18 January 2012 had therefore been lawful and well reasoned.

On 31 January 2012 the first applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that the town administration had not proved that Mr B. had lodged his notification before him. His request for the entry camera recording had been refused. He asserted that he had been the first to enter the administrative building on the morning of 16 January 2012 and to get an entry pass. He had not seen Mr B. at the reception. If Mr B., a member of the pro-government United Russia party, had been allowed to enter without an entry pass, that in itself showed discrimination on account of political opinion. He further submitted that Mr B.’s event, the purpose of which was to inform the population about various youth organisations in the region, was not a public event within the meaning of the Public Events Act and therefore did not require any notification or agreement. According to the applicant, it was possible for him to hold his meeting in front of the cinema at the same time as Mr B.’s information event near the Lenin monument. Referring to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 2 April 2009, he requested that his appeal be examined before the date of the intended meeting.

On 31 January 2012 the first applicant went to the Lenin monument at 6 p.m. and remained there for an hour. The location remained empty. Neither Mr B. nor anyone else was there to hold the information event approved by the town administration.

On 22 March 2012 the Rostov-on-Don Regional Court upheld the judgment of 30 January 2012 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified.

The applicants notified the Rostov-on-Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings on 31 March, 31 May, 31 July and 31 August 2012.

The Rostov-on-Don Town Administration refused to give the meetings their approval, giving the following reasons. The meetings of 31 March and 31 July 2012 were not approved because public events organised by the Young Guard were scheduled to take place near the Lenin monument on the same days. The notification of the meeting of 31 May 2012 was not examined. The meeting of 31 August 2012 was not approved because celebrations of the start of the school year were to take place near the Lenin monument.

On 10 December 2012 the State Duma adopted at first reading a draft law which, in particular, prohibited adoption of children of Russian nationality by US citizens.

On 17 December 2012 the official daily newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta announced that the second reading was scheduled for 19 December 2012.

According to the applicant, he read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo “pickets” on 19 December 2012 in front of the State Duma to express their opposition to the draft law. The format of solo “pickets” was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory three-day notification period for other types of public events.

The applicant decided to hold his own solo “picket”, and at around 9.15 a.m. positioned himself, holding a banner, in the vicinity of the State Duma at some distance from other protesters.

According to the applicant, he was arrested by the police several minutes later and brought in a police van to the nearby police station. At 10.30 a.m. the police drew up a report stating that the applicant had been escorted to the police station so that a report on an administrative offence could be drawn up. An arrest report, drawn up at the same time, stated that the applicant had arrived at the police station at 10.30 a.m. The applicant made a handwritten note on both reports that he was in fact arrested at 9.30 a.m., when he was put into the police van.

At the police station the applicant was charged with participating in a public event held without prior notification, in breach of Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The report on the administrative offence indicates that the offence was committed at 10 a.m. The applicant made a handwritten statement that he could not have committed an offence at that time because he had been in the police van since about 9.30 a.m.

The applicant was released at 1.20 p.m.

On 15 January 2013 the justice of the peace of 369 Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 20,000 (about EUR 495). The justice of the peace found it established, on the basis of police reports, that the applicant had taken part in a “picket” involving fifty people. That “picket” had been unlawful, because no notification had been submitted by the organisers, as required by Russian law. The applicant had waved a banner, thereby attracting the attention of passers-by and journalists assembled for the occasion. He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing.

In his appeal statement the applicant complained, in particular, that his arrest had been unlawful.

On 20 February 2013 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment on appeal.