CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCE14500 { height:36.1pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 43830/14 Aleksandr Borisovich ABRAMOVICH against Russia and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20   October 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President,   Andreas Zünd ,   Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 11 of the Convention (restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events) In the present applications, the applicants complained about the ban on different public events. They referred to Article 11 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 11 “1.     Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly ... 2.     No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others ...”   As regards the authorities’ decisions to ban holding public assemblies in Russia, the Court has already found in Alekseyev v. Russia (nos. 4916/07 and   2 others, §§ 99 and 100, 21 October 2010) that the judicial remedy of a post-hoc character the applicants had recourse to in the present case, was incapable of providing adequate redress in respect of the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention and found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on this account. The Court further considers that, at the time of the events in question, the applicants were well aware of the absence of effective domestic remedies for their complaints. Accordingly, in the Court’s view, its findings in Alekseyev should have enabled the applicants to reasonably anticipate the application of the exhaustion and six-months’ requirements in their cases. The Court therefore concludes that the applicants’ complaints about the ban on the rally should have been lodged within six months of the date of the refusal of the authorities to approve the proposed venue (for similar approach, see most recently, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no.   31782/15, 30 June 2020 and Komarova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no.   44570/11, 26   May 2020). It follows that the applications are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule set out in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and thus must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 November 2022.       Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   11 of the Convention (Restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Representative’s name and location Location Date of the public event planned Refusal Date Authority     43830/14 26/05/2014 Aleksandr Borisovich ABRAMOVICH 1962     Bolotnaya square, Moscow Numerous notifications between 15/09/2012 and 04/10/2012 Department of Regional Security Refusals sent between September 2012 and October 2012     72330/14 22/10/2014 (4 applicants) Ivan Aleksandrovich YELAYEV 1959 Olga Safronovna TARASOVA 1960 Viktor Anatolyevich TARASOV 1966 Vasiliy Viktorovich ALESHIN 1972     Saransk, Sovestkaya Square 29/03/2014 Saransk Town Administration 19/03/2014     59109/15 10/11/2015 Ivan Aleksandrovich YELAYEV 1959 Vasiliy Viktorovich ALESHIN 1972     Saransk, Sovestkaya Square 28/02/2015 Saransk Town Administration 24/02/2015     12261/16 17/02/2016 Ivan Aleksandrovich YELAYEV 1959     Saransk, Sovestkaya Square 20/11/2014 Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Mordovia 17/11/2014     18539/16 05/12/2014 (4 applicants) Ivan Aleksandrovich YELAYEV 1959 Olga Safronovna TARASOVA 1960 Viktor Anatolyevich TARASOV 1966 Vasiliy Viktorovich ALESHIN 1972     Saransk, Sovetskaya Square 09/03/2014 Saransk Town Administration 27/02/2014     18541/16 05/01/2015 Ivan Aleksandrovich YELAYEV 1959     Saransk 23/05/2014 Saransk Town Administration 16/05/2014     18543/16 22/12/2014 Ivan Aleksandrovich YELAYEV 1959     Saransk, Sovetskaya Square 01/05/2014 Saransk Town Administration 17/04/2014     18544/16 22/12/2014 Ivan Aleksandrovich YELAYEV 1959     Saransk, Sovestkaya Square 22/04/2014 Saransk Town Administration 09/04/2014     36138/16 15/06/2016 Aleksandr Vladlenovich SHCHELOV 1992 Glushkova Tatyana Sergeyevna Moscow Moscow 07/10/2013 Deputy Prefect 07/10/2013   26997/18 16/05/2018 Anton Sergeyevich GRACHEV 1980     Gatchina, Sobornaya street between buildings 9 and 10 18/11/2017 Administration of Gatchina Municipal District 14/11/2017