CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 février 2023

.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 } .sCBD1756B { height:51.65pt } .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 } .sE44FE089 { height:74.35pt } .s26D66D70 { height:49.95pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 81928/12 Olga Dmitriyevna BLATOVA against Russia and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   February 2023 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 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 applications nos.   39218/13 and 1897/14, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention (see the appended table). 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. The Court observes that the applicants challenged the decisions of local authorities disapproving the locations of their public events in the domestic courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicants brought these proceedings after the planned dates of their public events. 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 was incapable of providing adequate redress in respect of the alleged violations of Article 11 of the Convention. 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 administrations’ decisions banning their public events (see Komarova v.   Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 44570/11, § 18, 26 May 2020). In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 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 2 March 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Darian Pavli   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   11 of the Convention (restrictions on the 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 Restrictions applied Decision by local authority Name of local authority Date Final domestic decision (type of procedure) Date Name of the court Other complaints under well-established case-law     81928/12 23/11/2012 Olga Dmitriyevna BLATOVA 1976 Nugayeva Svetlana Yuryevna Moscow Near the Government building Moscow   12/09/2011 Proposal to change the location Deputy Prefect of the Central Administrative Circuit of Moscow 09/09/2011 Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure 25/05/2012 Moscow City Court —     36095/13 20/05/2013 Aleksey Lvovich BOLGAROV 1960   Konstantin Leonidovich YERSHOV 1963   — St. Isaac’s square St. Petersburg   19/08/2012 07/10/2012 Proposal to change the locations and/or time of the events St Petersburg Government 10/08/2012 28/09/2012 Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure 20/11/2012 (event of 19/08/2012) 22/01/2013 (event of 07/10/2012) St Petersburg City Court —     39218/13 30/04/2013 Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN 1969 Savina Anna Andriyanovna Novosibirsk Krasnyy Prospekt Novosibirsk 27/02/2012 28/02/2012 Proposal to change the location Novosibirsk City Administration 17/02/2012 (received on 20/02/2012) Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure 13/11/2012 Novosibirsk Regional Court Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about the violation of Article 11 rights     44329/13 20/02/2012 Yuliya Nikolayevna MAMAYEVA 1979 —   Tyumen, several manifestations between 28/03/2011 and 03/04/2011 Refusals because other events were planned on the same dates at the desired venues Tyumen City Administration 18/03/2011 22/03/2011 Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure 22/08/2011 Tyumen Regional Court —     1897/14 22/11/2013 Sofya Andreyevna MIKHAYLOVA 1986   — Near Aeroflot Office Moscow 25/10/2012 Refusal to approve the event Department for Regional Security of Moscow 17/10/2012 Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure 28/05/2013 Moscow City Court Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint     10372/14 23/12/2013 Siranush Khachaturovna MOSHIYAN 1963   — Lenin Monument Rostov-on-Don 31/03/2013 Proposal to change the location Rostov-on-Don City Administration 20/03/2013   Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure 24/06/2013 Rostov Regional Court —     17840/14 01/08/2013 Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN 1969 — Novosibirsk, several manifestations between 16/01/2012 and 19/01/2012 Refusal because the applicant failed to comply with the time-limits for lodging notifications under the domestic law Novosibirsk City Administration 30/12/2011 (received on 12/01/2012) Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure 30/09/2013 Novosibirsk Regional Court —