CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 7 février 2017

.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 } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s6C3B0BAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt } .s3A891538 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF5107D2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD34 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sF7876111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:11pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .s308A9C58 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .s5243C837 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s13907D4E { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE138E5D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; 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 } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sEC2DD5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; 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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sCE735C95 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s15514A1D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s7DE3733C { height:266.3pt } .s7BF544E6 { height:228.7pt } .s528E4FD3 { width:10.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }       THIRD SECTION               CASE OF LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA   (Applications nos. 57818/09 and 14 others ‑ see appended list)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   7 February 2017   FINAL   29/05/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. PROCEDURE THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Application no. 57818/09 Lashmankin v. Russia B.     Application no. 51169/10 Nepomnyashchiy v. Russia 1.     Notification of a “picket” in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow 2.     Notification of a “picket” in the Central Administrative District of Moscow C.     Application no. 4618/11 Ponomarev and Ikhlov v. Russia D.     Application no. 31040/11 Ponomarev and Others v. Russia E.     Application no. 19700/11 Yefremenkova and Others v. Russia 1.     2010 assemblies 2.     2011 assemblies F.     Application no. 55306/11 Kosinov and Others v. Russia G.     Application no. 7189/12 Zhidenkov and Others v. Russia H.     Applications nos. 47609/11, 59410/11, 16128/12, 16134/12, 20273/12, 51540/12 and 64243/12 Nagibin and Others v. Russia 1.     ”Picket” of 12 June 2009 2.     Meetings between October 2009 and October 2010 3.     Meeting of 31 October 2010 4.     “Picket” of 31 December 2010 5.     Meeting of 31 March 2011 6.     Meeting of 31 July 2011 7.     Meeting of 31 August 2011 8.     Meetings in October and December 2011 9.     Meeting of 31 January 2012 10.     Meetings between March and August 2012 I.     Application no. 37038/13 Tarasov v. Russia II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Freedom of peaceful assembly B.     Procedure for the conduct of public events 1.     The procedure in force at the material time 2.     The amendments introduced on 8 June 2012 3.     Further amendments 4.     Case-law of the Constitutional Court concerning the procedure for the conduct of public events C.     Civil proceedings 1.     Before 15 September 2015 2.     Since 15 September 2015 D.     Liability for breaches committed in the course of public events 1.     Domestic provisions before 8 June 2012 2.     The amendments introduced on 8 June 2012 3.     Examination of administrative charges E.     Administrative arrest III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE MATERIAL A.     United Nations Organisation documents B.     Council of Europe documents C.     Other international documents D.     Comparative law material THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS II.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Admissibility B.     Merits 1.     Submissions by the parties 2.     The Court’s assessment III.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 10, 11 AND 14 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Submissions by the parties 1.     The applicants 2.     The Government B.     The Court’s assessment 1.     Admissibility 2.     Merits IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Admissibility B.     Merits 1.     Submissions by the parties 2.     The Court’s assessment V.     ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Application no. 31040/11 Ponomarev and Others v. Russia 1.     Admissibility 2.     Merits B.     Application no. 37038/13 Tarasov v. Russia VI.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION VII.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION A.     Damage B.     Costs and expenses C.     Default interest OPERATIVE PART APPENDIX In the case of Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Helena Jäderblom,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 January 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in fifteen applications (nos.   57818/09, 51169/10, 4618/11, 19700/11, 31040/11, 47609/11, 55306/11, 59410/11, 7189/12, 16128/12, 16134/12, 20273/12, 51540/12, 64243/12, 37038/13) 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 twenty-three Russian nationals, whose names and dates of birth are listed in the Appendix, on various dates listed in the Appendix. 2.     The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin,   Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. Some of the applicants were represented by lawyers, whose names are listed in the Appendix. 3.     The applicants complained, in particular, of a breach of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. Some of the applicants also alleged unlawful arrest, unfair judicial review proceedings, and discrimination on account of political opinion or sexual orientation. 4.     On 22 January 2013 the above complaints were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Application no. 57818/09 Lashmankin v. Russia 5 .     On 19 January 2009 Mr Stanislav Markelov, a well-known human rights lawyer, and Ms Anastatsia Baburova, a journalist, were shot dead in Moscow. 6.     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. 7.     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. 8 .     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. 9.     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. 10.     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. 11 .     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. B.     Application no. 51169/10 Nepomnyashchiy v. Russia 12.     The applicant is a gay rights activist. 1.     Notification of a “picket” in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow 13 .     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”. 14 .     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. 15 .     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”. 16.     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. 17.     On 26 August 2009 the applicant challenged the Prefect’s refusal to approve the venue before the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow. 18 .     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. 19.     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. 20 .     On 25 February 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. 2.     Notification of a “picket” in the Central Administrative District of Moscow 21.     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. 22 .     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. 23 .     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. 24.     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. 25.     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”. 26 .     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. 27.     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. 28.     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. C.     Application no. 4618/11 Ponomarev and Ikhlov v. Russia 29 .     The two applicants are Mr   Ponomarev (the first applicant) and Mr   Ikhlov (the second applicant). 30 .     The applicants decided to commemorate the anniversary of the murder of Mr Stanislav Markelov and Ms Anastatsia Baburova (see paragraph 5 above). 31.     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.” 32.     The second applicant intended to attend the march and the meeting. 33.     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. 34.     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. 35 .     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. 36.     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. 37 .     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. D.     Application no. 31040/11 Ponomarev and Others v. Russia 38.     The three applicants are Mr   Ponomarev (the first applicant), Mr   Ikhlov (the second applicant) and Mr   Udaltsov (the third applicant). 39.     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. 40 .     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. 41 .     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”. 42.     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. 43.     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. 44.     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. 45.     According to the Government, the applicants’ complaint, sent by post, was received by the District Court on 19 March 2010. 46 .     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. 47 .     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 time ‑ limit of three days for a reply. 48 .     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. 49 .     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. 50.     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. 51 .     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. 52.     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. E.     Application no. 19700/11 Yefremenkova and Others v. Russia 53 .     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). 54.     The applicants are gay human rights activists. 1.     2010 assemblies (a)     Notifications concerning a march, a meeting and “pickets” and the authorities’ refusal to agree to them (i)     Notification of a march and a meeting 55.     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”. 56 .     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. 57 .     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. 58 .     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. 59.     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. 60 .     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. 61.     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. (ii)     Notifications of “pickets” 62 .     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. 63 .     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”. (iii)     Anti-gay meeting 64 .     On 26 June 2010 the Young Guard, the youth wing of the pro ‑ government 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. (b)     Judicial review of the refusals to approve the meeting, the march and the “pickets” (i)     Judicial review of the refusals to approve the meeting and the march 65.     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. 66.     The first hearing was scheduled for 2 July 2010. 67.     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 time ‑ limit 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. 68 .     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. 69.     On 30 August 2010 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. (ii)     Judicial review of the refusals to approve the “pickets” 70.     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. 71 .     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. 72 .     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. 73.     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. 74.     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. 2.     2011 assemblies (a)     Vasileostrovskiy Adm