CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 novembre 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s831CE78A { height:14.5pt } .sAD1F2DF7 { height:104.85pt } .s2AB951B7 { height:135.6pt } .s946186CF { height:1.1pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 19264/13 Dmitriy Borisovich SAKHAROV and Sergey Vladimirovich SOROKIN against Russia and 10 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   November 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Darian Pavli , President ,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Andreas Zünd , 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 were represented by Mr E. Mezak, a human rights defender from Syktyvkar. 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”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention (see the appended table). On 20 March 2014 Mr A. Ostrovskiy, the second applicant in application no.   37260/13, died. By letter of 14 January 2015 his daughter Ms   E.   Ostrovskaya expressed her interest to pursue the proceedings before the Court in his stead. The Government did not comment on this matter. 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) and Article 13 of the Convention (lack of effective domestic remedies) The applicants complained about the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events and the absence of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. They relied, expressly or in substance, on Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention. The Court does not consider it necessary to address the question as to the locus standi of Ms E. Ostrovskaya in the proceedings before it because the applications are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. The Court observes that the applicants challenged the decisions of the Syktyvkar City Administration refusing to approve the locations of their public events in the domestic courts after the planned dates of their public events. The Court has already found in Alekseyev v. Russia (nos. 4916/07 and   2 others, § 99, 21 October 2010) that the judicial remedy of a post-hoc character the applicants had recourse to was incapable of providing adequate redress in respect of the alleged violations of Article 11 of the Convention. It subsequently found a violation of Article 13 of the Convention owing to the absence of an effective domestic remedy (ibid., § 100). The applicants therefore should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the judicial review as a remedy in respect of their complaints so as to reasonably anticipate the application of the six-month requirement in their case (see, for similar approach, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, §§   14-16, 27 November 2018). Accordingly, they should have lodged their complaints within six months of the date of the Syktyvkar City Administration’s decisions refusing to approve the locations of their public events (see Komarova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 44570/11, § 18, 26   May 2020). It follows that the applications are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule and 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 15 December 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   Location Date of the public event planned Restrictions applied Decision by local authority Name of local authority Date Other complaints under well-established case-law Final domestic decision (type of procedure) Date Name of the court     19264/13 09/02/2013 Dmitriy Borisovich SAKHAROV 1961   Sergey Vladimirovich SOROKIN 1958 Stefanovskaya square Syktyvkar   04/02/2012 Proposal to change the location, general prohibition on holding public events at certain locations (near the court buildings) Syktyvkar City Administration 20/01/2012 — Notification procedure: 07/03/2013 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic     37260/13 07/05/2013 (8   applicants) Vladimir Vladimirovich ZUBKOV 1974   Aleksandr Borisovich OSTROVSKIY 1964 Deceased in 2014   Aleksandr Fedorovich SHCHIGOLEV 1961   Igor Valentinovich SAZHIN 1963   Leonid Aleksandrovich ZILBERG 1962   Vera Petrovna TERESHONKOVA 1958   Anastasiya Sergeyevna GRUMAND 1993   Anton Aleksandrovich PAKHOMOV 1990 Teatralnaya Square Syktyvkar   10/12/2011 Proposal to change the location Syktyvkar City Administration 08/12/2011 — Notification procedure: 08/11/2012 Supreme Court of Komi Republic       50115/13 17/06/2013 Dmitriy Borisovich SAKHAROV 1961   Sergey Vladimirovich SOROKIN 1958   Teatralnaya Square Syktyvkar   04/02/2012 Proposal to change the location Syktyvkar City Administration 26/01/2012 — Notification procedure: 17/12/2012 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic       3430/14 17/12/2013 Darya Vladimirovna CHERNYSHEVA 1991   Vyacheslav Sergeyevich SLYUSARYEV 1986 Lenina street Syktyvkar   31/03/2013 Proposal to change the location, general prohibition to hold LGBT event in view of the negative reaction of the society Syktyvkar City Administration 25/03/2013 — Notification procedure: 17/03/2013 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic       9733/14 14/01/2014 Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA 1984   Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO 1984   Syktyvkar Several manifestations planned between 14/09/2012 and 18/09/2012; 21/09/2012 and 25/09/2012; 28/09/2012 and 02/10/2012; 05/10/2012 and 12/10/2012; 13/10/2012 and 16/10/2012 Proposals to change the locations Syktyvkar City Administration 05/09/2012; 12/09/2012; 20/09/2012; 27/09/2012; 04/10/2012; 05/10/2012 Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint Notification procedure: 15/07/2013 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic     10205/14 21/01/2014 (3 applicants) Igor Valentinovich SAZHIN 1963   Semen Alekseyevich TERESHONKOV 1982   Marina Sergeyevna SEDOVA 1988 Stefanovskaya Square Syktyvkar   17/06/2013 Proposal to change the location Syktyvkar City Administration 11/06/2013 — Notification procedure: 16/12/2013   Supreme Court of the Komi Republic     11907/14 27/01/2014 (3 applicants) Natalya Alekseyevna BOYARINTSEVA 1975   Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA 1984   Alena Aleksandrovna GALINSKAYA 1982 Stefanovskaya Square Syktyvkar   24/06/2013 Proposal to change the location; general prohibition on holding public events at certain locations (near the court buildings) Syktyvkar City Administration 18/06/2013 Art. 13 – lack of an effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint Notification procedure: 16/12/2013 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic     12927/14 28/01/2014 (4 applicants) Tatyana Andreyevna KOROBOVSKAYA 1984   Dmitriy Sergeyevich PATOV 1986   Viktor Yevgenyevich DUDIN 1957   Pavel Vladimirovich LOGOVSKIY 1982 Stefanovskaya Square Syktyvkar   20/06/2013; 21/06/2013; 23/06/2013. Proposals to change the locations; general prohibition on holding public events at certain locations (near the court buildings) Syktyvkar City Administration 18/06/2013 — Notification procedure: 26/12/2013 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic     44802/14 28/05/2014 Svetlana Vladimirovna UVARKINA 1975   Marina Sergeyevna SEDOVA 1988 Square in front of the Prosecutor’s Office Syktyvkar   04/06/2013 Proposal to change the location Syktyvkar City Administration 30/05/2013 — Notification procedure: 28/11/2013 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   58163/14 16/07/2014 (4 applicants) Aleksandr Valeryevich ZHIVOTKO 1973   Olga Aleksandrovna KRUGLOVA 1984   Yuliya Borisovna PLOTNIKOVA 1981   Elvira Viktorovna BEREZA 1986   Stefanovskaya Square Syktyvkar   05/07/2013; 10/07/2013 Proposals to change the locations; general prohibition on holding public events at certain locations (near the court buildings) Syktyvkar City Administration 01/07/2013 — Notification procedure: 16/01/2014 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   2329/15 08/05/2013 Aleksandr Aleksandrovich NITCHENKO 1984 Several locations Syktyvkar   12/05/2012; 22/05/2012; 03/06/2012; 08/06/2012; 09/06/2012. Proposals to change the locations Syktyvkar City Administration 28/04/2012; 11/05/2012; 22/05/2012; 01/06/2012; 30/05/2012. — Notification procedure: 16/01/2013 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic   23/08/2012 Supreme Court of the Komi Republic (public event of 09/06/2012)