CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 26 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s382C212A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:61.8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s96B22F9F { width:184.93pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       THIRD SECTION               CASE OF NOVIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 25501/07, 57569/11, 80153/12, 5790/13 and 35015/13)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   26 April 2016     FINAL   12/09/2016   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Novikova and others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   George Nicolaou,   Helen Keller,   Johannes Silvis,   Dmitry Dedov,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 22 March 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in five applications against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five Russian nationals: Ms M.   Novikova, Mr Y.   Matsnev, Mr   V.   Savchenko, Mr   A.   Kirpichev (the applicant changed his name from “Kirpichenko” in the course of the proceedings) and Mr   V.   Romakhin. The applicants’ details and those of their representatives, the dates on which they lodged their applications and the application numbers are set out in the “Facts” section below. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   G.   Matyushkin, Representative of Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     On 24 March 2014 the complaints under Articles 5, 10, 11 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the first three applications was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES A.     Application no.   25501/07 4.     This application was lodged on 27   April   2007 by Marina Viktorovna Novikova, who was born in 1972 and lives in Moscow. The applicant is represented by Yuriy Yershov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 5.     On 10 November 2006 the applicant staged a demonstration in front of the State Duma in Moscow, holding a poster that read “Psychiatry kills our children on our taxes”. According to her, it was a solo static demonstration ( одиночное пикетирование ) (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below) and, as such, fell outside the statutory requirement to give prior notification to the competent public authority. Moreover, she took care to position herself at a distance from other people who were also present in front of the State Duma. 6.     After about ten minutes, the applicant was approached by police officers, who then took her to the district police station. An arrest record was compiled; the reasons for her arrest are unclear. 7.     According to the applicant, she spent some three hours in the police station and was then allowed to leave. 8 .     The Government submitted to the Court a report issued on 11   November 2006 by the senior officer on-duty, Su. The report stated that the applicant and five other people (including A., M. and S.) had been present at 8.30 a.m. in front of the State Duma, holding posters that read “Attention! Psychiatry kills. 7.5 million roubles of public funds spent on the destruction of lives”, “Do not force taxpayers to pay for psychiatrists’ systematic extermination of Russians”, “Psychiatrists need walls to hide their crimes” and other such statements. The Government also submitted to the Court copies of documents relating to administrative offence proceedings against A., M. and S. 9.     As for the applicant, the administrative offence record states that she was accused of “taking part, together with other citizens, in a demonstration in respect of which no prior notification had been provided to the public authorities”. Her actions were classified under Article 20.2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (hereinafter “the CAO”), which regulates the penalties applied to violations of the regulations on public events set out in, inter alia , the Public Assemblies Act. 10.     Officer G. submitted a written report to his hierarchical superior indicating that the applicant “had been arrested and taken to the police station for violating the regulations on public gatherings, namely Article   20.2 of the CAO”. 11.     According to the Government, on 14 November 2006 the case against the applicant was received by the justice of the peace of the Tverskoy District, who on the same day scheduled a hearing for 15   November 2006. According to the applicant, she was not informed of the hearing date until it was too late. Thus, she made no written or oral submissions to the court. 12.     Having examined the file, on 15 November 2006 the judge considered that the applicant had been apprised of the hearing but had refused to sign the summons. The court decided to proceed with the case in her absence and held that she had been afforded but had not used an adequate opportunity to make written or oral submissions. On the same day, the judge found the applicant guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and imposed a fine of 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB), which was at the time equivalent to 29 euros (EUR). 13 .     Referring to the arrest record, the offence record and G.’s report (see above), the court considered that the applicant had participated in a demonstration after which some five people and the applicant had been arrested. In the court’s view, the applicant’s behaviour amounted to participation in a public event requiring prior notification. The justice of the peace then held as follows: “[The applicant’s] actions constitute a violation of the regulations on static demonstrations in that no notification had been made [to the competent authority] about the possibility of staging a demonstration ... Thus, this demonstration was held without legal grounds. The court takes into account that the applicant’s presence next to the object being picketed, together with other people, directly discloses the expression of opinions and attitudes, and thus takes the form of a group public event, namely a static demonstration.” 14 .     The applicant sought re-examination of the case on appeal by the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. On 5 December 2006 the court heard the applicant and upheld the judgment of the justice of the peace, concluding that the applicant had taken part in a public event held without prior notification to the competent authority; on 10 November 2006 she had been apprised of the hearing to be held before the justice of the peace but had failed to sign the summons. 15.     On 23 January 2007 the Deputy President of the Moscow City Court upheld the District Court’s decision on supervisory review. B.     Application no.   57569/11 16.     This application was lodged on 26   August   2011 by Yuriy Ignatyevich Matsnev, who was born in 1937 and lives in Kaliningrad. He was represented by Aleksandr Koss, a lawyer practising in Kaliningrad. 17.     On 30 July 2010 the applicant staged a solo demonstration in front of the Kaliningrad Regional Administration building. He was holding a poster showing people (apparently, officials he suspected of corruption) behind bars, and saying “They should be found accountable!” and “Mr Boos! Kaliningrad’s residents are waiting for you to solicit the President!”. Mr S., a journalist, was passing by and filmed the demonstration and the arrival of the police. 18.     The applicant was arrested by the police and taken to the police station. He remained there for two hours and was then allowed to leave. No administrative offence proceedings were instituted against him. 19.     According to reports subsequently made by the arresting officers, the applicant had not had an identity document on him and had agreed to accompany them to the police station in order to have his identity verified and to have an administrative record compiled. 20.     The applicant brought civil proceedings seeking RUB 500,000 as compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage caused by the authorities’ actions. The applicant referred to Article 10 of the Convention. 21.     By a judgment of 14   March 2010, the Tsentralnyy District Court of Kaliningrad acknowledged that the taking of the applicant to the police station and his retention there had been unlawful. The court held as follows: “Following the escorting of [the applicant] to the police station no administrative offence case was opened ... [Mr S.] testified that the defendant had shown his identity document and had not expressed his consent to go with the police to the police station ... The police officers acted unlawfully when escorting the applicant to the police station ...” The court awarded the applicant RUB   6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (approximately EUR 149 at the time). It dismissed his claim concerning the alleged destruction of the poster by the police and made no separate findings relating to his freedom of expression. 22.     On 25 May 2011 the Kaliningrad Regional Court upheld the judgment. C.     Application no.   80153/12 23.     This application was lodged on 10   November   2012 by Viktor Mikhaylovich Savchenko, who was born in 1967 and lives in the village of Platonovo-Petrovka in the Rostov Region. 24.     On 23 June 2011, when Mr Putin was visiting the village of Peshkovo, the applicant staged a demonstration, standing at some distance from a road close to the village and holding a poster reading “Mr   Putin! In the Rostov region they disregard your Decree on social assistance to families. The Russian Government disregards its obligations to issue housing certificates!” 25.     According to the applicant, police officers approached him and ordered him to go to another place where journalists were filming. He arrived there and displayed his poster. He was approached by people in plain clothes who ordered the police to take him to the police station. The police complied. After some three hours in the police station, the applicant was free to leave. 26.     The police drew up a record of the administrative escorting in respect of the applicant. 27 .     The applicant was accused of disorderly behaviour on account of using foul language in a public place on 23 June 2011. On 24 June 2011 a senior police officer found him guilty under Article 20.1 of the CAO (see paragraph 74 below) and imposed a fine of RUB 500 on him. On 21   December 2011 the Azov Town Court overruled the conviction because the senior police officer had not heard evidence from the applicant. The court then discontinued the case owing to the expiry of the time-limit for prosecution. On 7 February 2012 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. 28 .     The applicant brought civil proceedings challenging the actions of the police in respect of him. On 4 April 2012 the Town Court dismissed his claims. On 14 June 2012 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. The appeal court noted that the courts dealing with the administrative offence case had not determined whether the applicant had committed the impugned action (using foul language) and whether he had committed an offence, but had simply discontinued the case on procedural grounds. The appeal court concluded that the above “did not disclose any unlawfulness” on the part of the law-enforcement officers, while the applicant had not substantiated, in the current case, that their actions had violated or otherwise impeded the exercise of his protected rights or freedoms. D.     Application no.   5790/13 29.     This application was lodged on 30   November   2012 by Aleksandr Mikhaylovich Kirpichev, who was born in 1984 and lives in Astrakhan. He is represented by Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 30.     At 7.15 p.m. on 3 July 2012 the applicant staged a solo demonstration at a bus stop. He was holding a poster which read “The Kremlin is not for sale – it is a piece of architecture!”. After several minutes some five passers-by stopped and looked at him and his poster. 31.     It appears that soon thereafter five police officers approached and warned those present that a meeting required prior notification to the authorities. The passers-by went away. 32.     It appears from a video recording submitted by the applicant that one of the police officers refused to listen to the applicant’s explanations and told him that he would be taken to the police station. The applicant was then placed in a police car and taken to the police station. He was accused of holding a public event without giving prior notice. 33.     According to the Government, the applicant had staged a public meeting first on the road and then on the pavement near a bus stop. The police officers’ written reports indicated that the applicant had called passers-by to approach and discuss with him the topic of the event. The police decided to apply the escort procedure ( доставление ) to the applicant because it was necessary to put an end to the administrative offence and because an administrative offence record could not be compiled on the spot since the applicant had no identity document on him. The applicant agreed to go with the police to the police station. 34 .     On 20 July 2012 a justice of the peace convicted the applicant under Article   20.2 § 2 of the CAO. The court considered that the applicant had held a public event in the form of a meeting ( митинг ); some five people had gathered but then dispersed after a warning from a police officer. The justice of the peace sentenced the applicant to a fine of RUB   20,000 (approximately EUR 505 at the time), noting that the applicant had committed an offence that was similar to another one for which he had already been convicted earlier the same year. The justice of the peace warned the applicant that his failure to pay the fine would constitute an administrative offence under Article 20.25 of the CAO, which was punishable by a fine of double the amount or up to fifteen days’ detention. 35.     The applicant appealed, arguing that the court had failed to take into account his financial situation when imposing a high fine. 36.     On 21   August 2012 the Kirovskiy District Court of Astrakhan upheld the judgment on appeal. The appeal court dismissed the argument concerning the amount of the fine by stating that it was the minimum statutory amount prescribed by Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO. 37.     In September 2012 the justice of the peace allowed the applicant to pay the fine in three monthly instalments. E.     Application no.   35015/13 38.     This application was lodged on 20 May 2013 by Valeriy Leonidovich Romakhin, who was born in 1965 and lives in Astrakhan. He is represented by Konstantin Ilyich Terekhov, a lawyer practising in Moscow. 39.     At 1.30 p.m. on 10 November 2012 the applicant held a solo demonstration in front of the Maritime University in Astrakhan, to express his disagreement with the recent decision to close the university. The applicant was holding a poster that read “To close the university is to commit a crime”. 40.     Mr A. was holding a demonstration on the other side of the road, making similar claims. He was holding a poster saying “Annul order no.   101 of 27 September 2012 and find its authors liable”. According to the applicant, he was standing some 50 metres away. The Government submitted that the applicant and A. were at “visual distance from each other”. 41.     Shortly after starting his demonstration, the applicant was approached by a police officer who warned him that he was in breach of Article 20.2 of the CAO. He then escorted the applicant to the police station. It appears that A. was also taken to the police station. According to the Government, it was not possible to draw up an administrative offence record on the spot because the applicant had no identity document on him. 42.     The applicant was allowed to leave the police station after several hours. 43.     In the Astrakhan Region, Law no.   80/2012-FZ of 27 November   2012 set the minimum distance between solo demonstrators at twenty metres. 44.     On 6   December 2012 a justice of the peace held a hearing. A. stated that he knew the applicant; without any concerted plan, they had both gone to the university to stage solo demonstrations; the applicant had not prepared his own poster and so had taken one of A.’s posters; they had placed themselves at a distance of some fifty metres from each other. 45 .     On the same day, the justice of the peace convicted the applicant under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (organisation and holding of a public event without prior notification) and imposed a fine of RUB   20,000 on him. On 5   February 2013 the Sovetskiy District Court of Astrakhan upheld the judgment. The courts considered that the applicant and A. had held a public static demonstration (common logistical organisation, timing and claims disclosing a common goal), which by law required them to notify the local authorities in advance. The courts concluded that the offence impinged upon public order and public security, “having a significant adverse impact on protected public relations”. According to the Government, the applicant was a “participant” in a demonstration with A. 46 .     It appears that on 26 April 2013 the Astrakhan Regional Court reviewed the case and reduced the fine to RUB 1,000. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Freedom of assembly and freedom of expression 1.     Russian Constitution 47.     The Constitution of Russia guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to hold meetings, demonstrations, marches and pickets (Article   31). It also guarantees the right to freedom of thought and expression, as well as freedom to freely seek, receive, transfer and spread information by any legal means (Article 29). 48.     Article 55 of the Constitution provides that rights and freedoms may be limited by a federal statute only in so far as it is necessary for protecting the foundations of the constitutional regime, the morals, health, rights and legitimate interests of others, and for ensuring national defence and security. 2.     Procedure for the conduct of public events (a)     General provisions 49 .     Federal Law no.   FZ-54 of 19 June 2004 on Gatherings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets (“the Public Assemblies Act”), defines a public event ( публичное мероприятие ) as an open, peaceful event accessible to all, organised on the initiative of Russian citizens, political parties, other public associations or religious associations. The aims of a public event are to express or develop opinions freely and to voice demands on issues related to political, economic, social or cultural life in the country, as well as issues related to foreign policy (section 2(1)). 50 .     A public event may be held in any convenient location, provided that it does not create a risk of building collapse or any other risks to the safety of the participants. The access of participants to certain locations may be banned or restricted in the circumstances specified by federal laws (section   8(1)). Public events in the immediate vicinity of a court are prohibited (section 8(2)). 51.     No earlier than fifteen days and no later than ten days before the intended public event, its organisers must notify the competent regional or municipal authorities of the date, time, location or itinerary and purposes of the event, its type, the expected number of participants, and the names of the organisers. Notification of a picket involving several people must be submitted no later than three days before the intended picket or, if the deadline falls on a Sunday or a public holiday, no later than four days before the intended picket (section 7(1) and (3)). A notification of a public event is a document by which the competent authority is informed, in accordance with the procedure established by the Act, that an event will be held, so that the competent authority may take measures to ensure safety and public order during the event (section   2 (7)). 52.     Upon receipt of such notification the competent regional or municipal authorities must, inter alia : (1)     confirm receipt of the notification; (2)     provide the organisers of the event, within three days of receiving the notification (or, in the case of a picket involving several people, if the notification is submitted less than five days before the intended picket, on the day of receipt of such notification), with reasoned suggestions for changing the location and/or time of the event, or for amending the purposes, type or other arrangements if they are incompatible with the requirements of the Act; (3)     ensure, in cooperation with the organisers of the event and representatives of the competent law-enforcement agencies, the protection of public order and citizens’ security, as well as the administration of emergency medical aid if necessary (section 12(1)). 53.     The competent regional or municipal authority may refuse to allow a public event only if the person who has submitted the notification is not entitled to organise a public event or if it is prohibited to hold public events at the location chosen by the organisers (section 12(3)). 54.     No later than three days before the intended date of the event (this time-limit does not apply to pickets involving one person) the organisers of a public assembly must inform the authorities in writing whether or not they accept the authorities’ suggestions for changing the location and/or time of the event (section 5(4)(2)). 55 .     According to the Russian Constitutional Court, the prior notification requirement is aimed at providing advance notice and relevant information (including about the type of event, its place, timing and expected number of participants) to the competent authorities. Otherwise the authorities would be deprived of a real opportunity to comply with their constitutional obligation to respect and protect individual rights and freedoms, and to take the necessary measures aimed at ensuring safety for the participants and other people (Ruling no. 4-P of 14   February 2013; ruling no. 30-P of 5   December 2012). (b)     Provisions on solo static demonstrations (solo “pickets”) 56.     The Public Assemblies Act defines a “picket” as a form of public expression of opinion that does not involve movement or the use of loudspeaker equipment, where one or more citizens with placards, posters and other means of visual expression assemble near the target object of the picket (section 2(6)). 57.     No notification is required for pickets involving one person (section 7(1) and (3)). On 8 June 2012 the Public Assemblies Act was amended. New subsection (1.1) in section 7 provides that the regional statutes will determine the distance between solo demonstrators, which should not exceed fifty metres. It empowers the courts to declare that several solo demonstrations, taken together, constitute a single public event if they share the same goal and organisation. 58 .     In its ruling no. 4-P of 14 February 2013 the Russian Constitutional Court assessed the above new provision of the Act. -     The court noted that the absence of the notification requirement for solo demonstrations excluded any State interference with such public events, which could be held at any venue and at any time, unless otherwise provided by the law. However, to avoid a group event being disguised as solo demonstrations and to prevent the event’s organiser from evading his duty to notify the authority, the legislator imposed the requirement that a minimum distance be kept between solo demonstrators; this distance was to be specified by each region of Russia but could not exceed fifty metres. If the organiser evaded the duty to notify, the public authorities would be impeded in taking timely and adequate measures to ensure the requisite order for running a given civic initiative and to secure public safety and protection of the rights of the event’s participants and other people. -     In some situations even the observance of the minimum distance requirement would not exclude the abusive use of freedom of assembly by way of disguising a group event as simultaneous solo demonstrations. Thus, even where several demonstrations can be formally classified as solo demonstrations, they can be classified as a static demonstration by a group of people on account of the following: if it is sufficiently evident that they have common goals and a common organisation; if they are being held simultaneously and are physically close to each other; if their participants use means of campaigning that are similar or identical, and if they put forward common claims or calls. -     The above findings must be made by a court, following an impartial and independent assessment, which gives an adequate level of protection to the constitutional right to hold a solo demonstration. The court should ascertain that there was no random coincidence of unrelated demonstrations, and should avoid classifying a solo demonstration as a single public event where the event merely attracts normal attention on the part of those who happened to show interest in it. Furthermore, there must be a presumption of lawfulness regarding the actions of a person exercising his or her right to hold a solo demonstration. Thus, the burden of proof in respect of the common design and organisation of a demonstration rests with the officials or authorities initiating the relevant civil, criminal or administrative proceedings. The opposite approach would encroach excessively upon the constitutional freedom of peaceful assembly. -     Overall, the court declared section 7(1.1) of the Act compatible with the Russian Constitution. Judge Kazantsev expressed a separate opinion that can be summarised as follows. Being the least challenging in terms of security/safety and entailing no movement or use of loud-speaker devices, a solo static demonstration does not pose any real threat to public safety or State security. Nor does it create any serious danger to health, property or morals. It does not encroach upon one’s freedom of movement. Therefore, it is not subject to a notification requirement, which is related to the fact that the mere presence of a relatively large number of people in the same place, in itself, carries certain risks and thus the organiser of a public event should receive assistance for such an event. The authorities have the statutory aims of ensuring, together with the event’s organiser, public safety and security of people present, and providing urgent medical assistance. The observance of a fifty-metre distance between solo demonstrators excludes, in all cases, a possible lack of balance between the freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of movement, even where solo demonstrators have common goals and organisation. Judicial assessment is an important safeguard. However, the current statutory framework does not prevent the arrest of a person who is not a member of an organisation and carries out a solo demonstration that happens to be close to another demonstration that is wholly unrelated to him. The ensuing judicial review can only confirm the absence of any common design and prevent any further violation of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. However, such a review cannot make up for the damage suffered on account of the disruption of a demonstration, arrest and court proceedings. Overall, the statutory provision under review is aimed at impeding solo demonstrations. 59.     The regional statutes specifying the distance between solo demonstrators vary. For instance: In the Rostov Region, regional law no. 146-3C of 27   September 2004 complements the federal regulations on public gatherings. In December 2012 that law was amended to provide that the distance between solo demonstrations should be no less than fifty metres (section 2 of the law). Since January 2013 a similar law in Moscow (law no. 10 of 4   April 2007) has provided for the same distance and specifies that simultaneous demonstrations should be treated as solo demonstrations provided that they do not have a common goal and organisation (section 2.3). In the Tatarstan Republic, law no. 91-ZRT of 25 December   2012 provides that the relevant distance should be no less than thirty metres (section 8). In the Sverdlovsk Region, law no. 102-FZ of 7 December 2012 provides that the distance should attain or exceed forty metres (section 5). In the Astrakhan Region, law no.   80/2012-FZ of 27 November 2012 sets the relevant distance at no less than twenty metres (section 4). B.   Liability for violation of the rules on public events 1.     Termination of a public event 60 .     The organiser of a public event must put an end to it where the event’s participants have committed unlawful actions (section 5 of the Public Assemblies Act). A designated official of an executive authority or a municipal authority is empowered to take a decision to stop the public event (section 13). A designated law-enforcement officer is empowered to bar access to the event where the maximum capacity of the venue has been exceeded; or to order the event organiser or its participants to comply with the rules for holding public events (section 14). 61.     If the event participants breached the regulations ( правопорядок ) while causing no threat to life or limb, the designated executive or municipal official may require the event organiser to remedy the violation (section 15). If that requirement is not complied with, the executive or municipal official may suspend the event pending the remedying of the violation. If the violation is not remedied, the event should be ended. The grounds for ending a public event are as follows: a real threat to life, limb or property; unlawful acts committed by the event participants; and the organiser’s wilful violation of the regulations concerning the running of a public event (section 16). 62 .     The procedure for putting an end to a public event is as follows: the designated executive or municipal official orders the organiser to stop the event, providing the reasons for stopping the event; the official sets a time-limit for complying with the order to end the event; if the organiser does not comply, the official himself or herself announces the end of the event and affords time to disperse (section 17). Where the order to stop the event has not been complied with, the police should take the necessary measures to stop the event. Failure to comply with lawful orders of the police or disobedience (that is, resistance) on the part of the event participants entails liability under other provisions of Russian law. 2.     Prosecution for an administrative offence 63.     Article 3.1 of the CAO defines an administrative penalty as a measure of responsibility for an administrative offence, with the purpose of preventing new offences by the offender or others. 64.     Chapter 20 of the CAO lists administrative offences that impinge upon public order and public safety ( общественный порядок и общественная безопасность ). (a)     Before 2012 65.     Before June 2012 a breach of the statutory procedure for organising a public event by its organiser was punishable by a fine of up to twenty minimum wages (Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO), RUB 2,000. 66 .     A breach of the statutory procedure for the running of a public event was punishable by a fine of up to twenty minimum wages for organisers and up to ten minimum wages (RUB 1,000) for participants (Article 20.2 §   2 of the CAO). (b)     Since 2012 67.     Since June 2012, Article 3.5 of the CAO has provided that an individual could not be fined more than RUB 5,000, except for an offence under Articles 5.38, 20.2, 20.2.2, 20.18 and 20.25, for which the fine could be up to RUB 300,000. 68 .     On 8 June 2012 Article 20.2 of the CAO was redrafted as follows: -     A breach of the procedure for organising or running a public event by an organiser became punishable by a fine of between RUB 10,000 and RUB   20,000 or up to forty hours of community work (Article 20.2 § 1). -     The organisation or running of a public event without notifying the competent public authority became punishable by a fine of between RUB   20,000 and RUB 30,000 or up to fifty hours of community work (Article 20.2 § 2). -     Stricter penalties were introduced for the above actions or inaction where they obstructed pedestrians or traffic, or caused damage to health or property (Article 20.2 §§ 3 and 4). Separate offences concerned violations by an event participant of the procedure for running the event (§   5) and where such violations caused damage to health or property (§ 6). 69 .     In its ruling no. 4-P of 14 February 2013 the Constitutional Court declared the minimum statutory fines unconstitutional (in particular under Article 20.2 of the CAO) in so far as the relevant provisions of the CAO did not allow the imposition of a fine below the minimum amount. The court held that any fine should take into account the nature of the offence, the financial situation of the person concerned or other factors relating to the individualisation of the penalty and to the requirements of proportionality and fairness. The Constitutional Court required the legislator to amend the CAO accordingly. Until that time, the courts were instructed to consider the possibility of imposing a fine below the minimum statutory fine. C.     Other relevant legislation 70 .     A person can be absolved from prosecution for an administrative offence by way of receiving an oral warning only, in view of the low negative impact ( малозначительность ) of the offence (Article 2.9 of the CAO). 71.     Refusal to obey a lawful order or request from a police officer is punishable by an administrative fine of RUB 500 to RUB 1,000, or up to fifteen days’ administrative detention (Article 19.3 of the CAO). 72.     Non-payment of an administrative fine constitutes an administrative offence punishable by a doubled fine or up to fifteen days’ administrative detention (Article 20.25 of the CAO). 73 .     When legislating on the issue of responsibility for an administrative offence consisting in a violation of regulations prescribed by statutes or other general legal provisions, the legislator has discretion to decide, with due regard to the essence of the public relations to protect, whether responsibility arises solely on account of non-observance of the relevant regulation or also on account of any actual damage or (real) threat of such damage to the protected object, for instance life or limb, or to property (Constitutional Court, ruling no. 12-P of 18 May 2012, paragraph 4.1, assessing the legislation as it was before the amendments adopted in June 2012). Under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO, responsibility is not conditional on actual damage or consequences: the mere fact of failing to notify the competent public authority of a public event constitutes an unlawful and punishable omission (ibid.; see also decision no. 485-O of 4 April   2013, paragraph 2.1). This omission creates a risk of a violation of others’ rights and freedoms, because it makes it more difficult for the authorities to take adequate measures to prevent or put an end to violations of public order and public safety (decision no. 485-O). 74 .     Minor hooliganism (violations of public order consisting in actions displaying a manifest disregard to society, accompanied by foul language ( нецензурная брань ) in a public place, harassing others or by damaging property) is punishable by a fine or up to fifteen days’ detention (Article 20.1 of the CAO). Assessing a similar provision under the old CAO, the Constitutional Court considered that it aimed at protecting human dignity and personal inviolability against unlawful affronts from another person (decision no. 70-O of 19 April 2001). D.     Fairness and procedural guarantees in cases concerning administrative offences 75.     Article 1.5 of the CAO provides for the presumption of innocence. An official or court dealing with an administrative-offence case should establish whether the person concerned is guilty or innocent (ruling no. 5 of 24   March 2005 by the Plenary Supreme Court of Russia). 76.     The Constitutional Court stated that Articles 118 § 2 and 123 § 3 of the Russian Constitution provided that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial procedure should apply in court proceedings, including under the CAO. Although those constitutional guarantees applied in cases examined (directly) by the courts, they did not apply in cases examined by non-judicial authorities or officials (decision no. 630-O of 23 April 2013 of the Russian Constitutional Court). However, the person concerned may seek judicial review of their decisions; such review proceedings should provide for equality of arms and adversarial procedure (ibid.). 77.     Article 25.1 § 4 of the CAO provides that a person prosecuted under the CAO is entitled to study the case-file material, make submissions, adduce evidence, lodge motions and challenges, and have legal assistance. The Constitutional Court considered that those guarantees enabled the person concerned to refute, in the course of court proceedings, the information contained in the case file, for instance in the offence record ( протокол об административном правонарушении ), thereby exercising his or her right to judicial protection based on the principle of adversarial procedure (decision no. 925-O-O of 17 June 2010). 78.     On the other hand, the Constitutional Court held in relation to the Code of Criminal Procedure that requiring or allowing a court to take over the functions normally attributed to a prosecuting authority contradicted Article 123 of the Constitution and impeded independent and impartial administration of justice (see, among others, ruling no. 16-P of 2 July 2013). 79.     Article 30.6 of the CAO provides for appeal against a first-instance judgment. The appeal court is required to examine the existing and new evidence in the case file, and to provide a full review of the case. E.     Escorting a person to the police station, arrest and other coercive or preventive measures 1.     Police powers 80 .     Under the old Police Act (Federal Law no. 1036-I of 18 April 1991) the police were empowered to carry out administrative arrests. 81 .     Under the current Police Act (Federal Law no. 3-FZ of 7 February 2011) the police are empowered to check an individual’s identity documents where there are reasons to suspect the person of a criminal offence or if his or her name is on a wanted persons list, where there is a reason for prosecuting him or her for an administrative offence, or where there are other grounds, prescribed by federal law, for arresting the person (section   13 of the Act). The police are also empowered to take the person to the police station in order to decide whether he or she should be arrested if it cannot be done on the spot. The police are empowered to take fingerprints, to take photographs or make video recordings of an arrestee suspected of a criminal offence or where it was not possible to properly identify the arrestee during the arrest (section 13 of the Act). 2.     Administrative escorting and administrative arrest 82.     Article 27.1 of the CAO provides a number of measures, including administrative escorting ( административное доставление ) and administrative arrest ( административный арест ), which may be used for the purpose of putting an end to an administrative offence, to establish the offender’s identity, to compile the administrative offence record if this cannot be done on the spot, or for the purpose of timely and correct examination of the case and enforcement of a decision taken in it. 83.     Article 27.2 defines “administrative escorting” as a procedure by which an offender is compelled to follow the competent officer for the purposes of compiling an administrative offence record when it cannot be done on the spot. The Constitutional Court has held that this measure of compulsion, which amounts to temporary restriction of a person’s freedom of movement, should be applied only when it is necessary and within short timeframes. Referring to the notion of “deprivation of liberty” under Article 5 of the Convention, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the relevant criteria relating to Article 5 of the Convention are “fully applicable” to the measure (Decision no.   149-O-O of 17 January 2012). 84.     In exceptional circumstances relating to the need for a proper and expedient examination of an administrative case, the person concerned may be placed under “administrative arrest”. The arrestee should be informed of his rights and obligations; this notification should be mentioned in the arrest record. The duration of such administrative arrest must not normally exceed three hours. Administrative arrest for a longer period, not exceeding forty ‑ eight hours, is permissible only for persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning an offence punishable by administrative detention or offences involving unlawful crossing of the Russian border. This term starts to run as soon as the person has been escorted to the police station in accordance with Article 27.2 of the Code (Article 27.5 of the Code). The Constitutional Court has ruled that such arrest amounts to “deprivation of liberty” as it is understood by the European Court within the meaning of Article 5 §1(c) of the Convention (Ruling no.   9-P of 16 June 2009). III.     OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL 85.     The 2014 Report compiled by the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Russian Federation contains the following section concerning proceedings under the CAO: “Legislative guarantees relating to adversarial proceedings in CAO cases have until now been lacking. The Russian Constitution safeguards the principle of equality of arms and the principle of adversarial procedure as the basis of adjudication, without any exception. This means it is absolutely necessary to provide for adversarial proceedings, including in CAO cases. Adversarial proceedings require that the institution of prosecution, the drafting of accusations and their presentation before a court should be carried out by the authorities or officials, as specified in the statute. However, the CAO indicates that a court hearing may be held without any public official who would be empowered in some way to present the administrative offence charge and to prove it. A prosecutor’s participation in the case is not mandatory. As a rule, the participants in the proceedings are the judge, the defendant and his counsel. As a matter of fact, the defence is not opposed to a prosecuting party but to the court itself. This does not exclude the presence of some de facto functions of prosecution with the judge. The overwhelming majority of CAO cases include examination, as evidence, of public officials’ reports, while these officials act, de facto , as initiators of the proceedings and as accusers. Their written explanations and their oral testimonies in court are also treated as evidence. Thus, the “bulk of evidence” consists of copying all the information which was provided by the person who initiated the proceedings. Established judicial practice indicates that accusatory testimonies by public officials are treated as more trustworthy than exculpatory evidence which is submitted by the defence ... An administrative offence record has the same status as a bill of indictment and thus represents the opinion of one of the parties. The merits of this opinion should be established at a court hearing. It is against the right to a fair hearing (on the basis of equality of arms and adversarial procedure) to use in evidence documents which contain accusations and opinion on evidence. In such a situation, the opinion of one party is treated as evidence in the case. Opinion on the defence’s testimonies is not treated as proper evidence. If the defendant is not in a position to adduce objective evidence proving his innocence, his explanations or testimonies by witnesses on his behalf are declared, as a rule, to be untruthful. The above lacunae in the legislation render examinations of CAO cases partial ... The contents of the complaints lodged with