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 } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .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 }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 73639/17 and 73650/17 Nikolay Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV and Others against Russia (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’ complaints under Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on locations of public events and the lack of domestic remedies thereof 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 locations 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 locations of public events and the absence of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. They referred to Articles 11 and 13 of the Convention. By the letter of 14 March 2020 Mr Alekseyev informed the Registry that he wanted to withdraw all of his applications pending before the Court since he was no longer interested in pursuing them. In the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the case in respect of Mr Alekseyev. Accordingly, it decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases. As regards the remainder of the applications, the Court observes that the applicants challenged the decisions of local authorities refusing to approve the locations of their public events in the domestic courts after the dates of the planned 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 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 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 local authorities’ 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 remainder of the applications is 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; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in so far as they concern Mr Nikolay Aleksandrovich Alekseyev; Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 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 Final domestic decision (type of procedure) Date Name of the court     73639/17 10/08/2017 (3 applicants) Nikolay Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV 1977   Yaroslav Nikolayevich YEVTUSHENKO 1994   Sofya Andreyevna MIKHAYLOVA 1986   Petrozavodsk Three public events planned on 20/11/2016 Proposal to change the location Administration of Petrozavodsk Urban District 10/11/2016 Notification procedure Supreme Court of Russia   04/07/2017     73650/17 20/09/2017 (3 applicants) Nikolay Aleksandrovich ALEKSEYEV 1977   Yaroslav Nikolayevich YEVTUSHENKO 1994   Sofya Andreyevna MIKHAYLOVA 1986   Kemerovo Three public events planned on 27/11/2016 Proposal to change the location Kemerovo City Administration 25/11/2016 Notification procedure Supreme Court of Russia   06/09/2017