CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 octobre 2024

.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 } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s527DE03B { width:127.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 Application no. 25465/16 Sergey Ivanovich KONSTANTINOV against Russia and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   October 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Ioannis Ktistakis , President ,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Diana Kovatcheva , 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 the location, time or manner of conduct of public events were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). The applicant in application no. 34199/19 also complained under Article 13 of the Convention in relation to the same set of facts. 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 (restrictions on the 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. The applicant in application no. 34199/19 about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. Application no. 25465/16 The Court observes that the applicant challenged the decision of the Moscow Regional Security Department to ban his public event before the domestic courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. He instituted those proceedings five months after the planned date of his march. The Court has already held 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 to which the applicant had recourse was not capable of providing an adequate redress for the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention. The applicant should therefore have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the judicial review as a remedy in respect of his complaints, so as to have reasonably anticipated the application of the six-month requirement in his case (see, for a similar approach,   Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos.   14988/09   and 50   others, §§   14-16, 27 November 2018). Accordingly, he should have lodged his complaints within six months of the date of the decision of the Moscow Regional Security Department to ban his march (see   Blatova and Others v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], nos. 81928/12 and 6   others, 2 February 2023, and Komarova v.   Russia   (dec.) [Committee], no.   44570/11, § 18, 26 May 2020). In view of the above, the Court finds that this application is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Applications nos. 9953/19 and 34199/19 The Court notes that the applicants challenged, under the Code of Administrative Procedure, the decisions of the local authorities refusing to approve the location or timing of their public events. The Government contended that the applicants had an effective remedy for their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention. The Court has previously held that a two ‑ tier cassation review constitutes an effective remedy capable of providing redress in cases examined under the Code of Administrative Procedure (see Chigirinova v.   Russia ((dec.), no. 28448/16, §§ 28-31, 13   December 2016). This approach has been reaffirmed in the context of judicial review of alleged restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly (see Pleshkov and Others v. Russia , nos. 29356/19 and 31119/19, § 53-55, 21   November 2023). Therefore, the applicants should have availed themselves of the two-tier cassation review under the Code of Administrative Procedure but failed to do so without any apparent and valid justification. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. The Court finally considers that the applicant’s complaint under   Article   13   of the Convention in application no. 34199/19 is manifestly ill ‑ founded 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 7 November 2024.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Ioannis Ktistakis   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     25465/16 27/04/2016 Sergey Ivanovich KONSTANTINOV 1979   Tsvingli Vladimir Igorevich Moskou Moscow   Equality March   03/05/2014 prohibition on holding the planned public assembly Moscow Regional Security Department 25/04/2014 Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure   Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 20/11/2015       9953/19 23/01/2019 Eduard Anatolyevich NIKOLAYEV 1971       Rostov-on-Don Rally "Freedom for Oleg Sentsov"   02/06/2018 proposal to change the time Rostov-on-Don City Administration 30/05/2018 Judicial review under the Code of Administrative Procedure   Rostov Regional Court 25/07/2018       34199/19 16/06/2019 Vladimir Ivanovich OSTAPUK 1955       March against corruption   Sochi   28/08/2018 proposal to change the location Sochi Town Administration 20/08/2018 Judicial review under the Code of Administrative Procedure     Krasnodar Regional Court   12/03/2019 Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of the complaint under Article 11 of the Convention.