CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 10 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sA034F24A { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sADAE7E8B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:55.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .s29078B82 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:59.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:5.1pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .sEC227135 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC1019519 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC84D7D15 { margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6430D388 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial } .sF9B3189B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { 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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD8AE9261 { width:36.9pt; display:inline-block } .s756AA39C { width:164.45pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } FIRST SECTION CASE OF RODINA AND BORISOVA v. LATVIA (Applications nos. 2623/16 and 2299/16)   JUDGMENT   Art 11 (read in the light of Art 10) • Freedom of peaceful assembly • Domestic authorities’ refusal to authorise demonstrations and march sought by an association and a private person for security and safety concerns in the context of a tense situation in Latvia in 2014 • Somewhat wider margin of appreciation than the limited margin afforded in respect of political parties • No place in a democratic society for calls for expressing the superiority of one nation over another nation or aggressive “war propaganda” messages aimed at expressing support for unrecognised separatist entities in eastern Ukraine • Real risk of disorder and legitimate reasons to fear for Latvia’s own security, territorial integrity, and democratic order • Sufficiently reasoned domestic courts’ assessment of the level of the threat posed by the impugned events • Relevant and sufficient reasons • Interference meeting a “pressing social need”, “proportionate to the aims pursued” and “necessary in a democratic society”   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 10 July 2025   FINAL   10/10/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Alena Poláčková,   Frédéric Krenc,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Alain Chablais,   Artūrs Kučs , judges , and Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   2623/16 and 2299/16) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by an association “Rodina” (“the first applicant”), and by a Latvian national, Ms   Anda Borisova (“the second applicant”), on 5 January and 4   January 2016 respectively; the decision to give notice to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 18 March and 17   June 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that the domestic authorities and courts refused to authorise assemblies that they wished to hold on 9 May and 23   September 2014. THE FACTS 2.     The first applicant is an association registered in 2004 and based in Riga. The second applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Riga. Both applicants were represented by Mr A. Kuzmins, who was granted leave to represent them. Following the death of Mr A. Kuzmins, Mr   D. Gorba was granted leave to represent them. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Facts relating to the first applicant (application no. 2623/16) 5.     The registered goals of the first applicant (its name “Rodina” in Russian – родина – means “motherland” in English) include the representation of the Russian-speaking community in Latvia and the protection and development of the national identity of Russians in Latvia. Background and context of the application 6 .     Following World War II, 9 May was declared Victory Day in the USSR and from 1965 it was a public holiday. In 1985, a monument dedicated to the Soviet Army – “Liberators of Soviet Latvia and Riga from the German Fascist Invaders” (commonly known as “the Soviet Victory Monument”) – was unveiled in Riga. 7.     Following the restoration of Latvia’s independence in 1991 (see, for more details, Savickis and Others v. Latvia [GC], no. 49270/11, §§   12 ‑ 16, 9   June 2022), 9 May ceased to be a public holiday. 8 .     The Soviet Victory Monument and celebration of Victory Day also became the subject of a continuous debate in Latvia, which focused on the symbolism of the Soviet Victory Monument and the different interpretations of the events that had taken place during World War II and thereafter. 9.     On the one hand, the military personnel and pensioners who had remained in Latvia after 1994 and those who had migrated to Latvia during the Soviet occupation of Latvia from other parts of the Soviet Union, considered the Soviet army to have been the liberators of the Soviet Union (including Latvia) from the Nazis. For the almost thirty years following the restoration of Latvia’s independence, those groups of society had continued to publicly commemorate and celebrate Victory Day. Large public events had been organised in the vicinity of the Soviet Victory Monument and elsewhere which had been attended by many people – mainly Russian-speaking local residents, politicians, and people from other countries. During those events, people had lain flowers, celebrated the victory of the Soviet Army over Nazi Germany and uttered and waved slogans aimed at the glorification of Russia’s greatness. Some of those people had even at those events worn uniforms of the former Soviet Army and pins depicting a hammer and sickle at the centre of a red star – symbols of the former Soviet Union. 10.     On the other hand, other groups in society – mostly (i) Latvians who during the unlawful occupation and annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union had been subjected to Russification policies (see, in a case involving the field of education, Valiullina and Others v. Latvia , nos.   56928/19 and 2 others, §§   6-12, 14   September 2023) and had been otherwise oppressed (having been subjected to mass deportations and persecutions, see Larionovs and Tess v.   Latvia (dec.), nos.   45520/04 and 19363/05, §§   11-12 and 15 ‑ 21, 25   November 2014), and (ii) their descendants – considered that the Soviet Victory Monument and celebration of Victory Day symbolised the atrocities that had followed the loss of the independence that Latvia had enjoyed prior to World War II. 11 .     After the Russian Federation acquired military and political control of Crimea (including the city of Sevastopol) in the spring of 2014 (see Ukraine v.   Russia (re Crimea ) (dec.) [GC], nos.   20958/14 and 38334/18, §§   315 ‑ 49, 16 December 2020) – and, in particular, after the Russian Federation’s armed attack and military invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 (see Ukraine v.   Russia (re Crimea ) [GC], nos. 20958/14 and 38334/18, §   16, 25   June 2024; see also Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16 and 2   others, § 90, 30 November 2022) – debates about whether the Soviet Victory Monument should be demolished and about Victory Day celebrations resurfaced in Latvian society. On 25   August 2022 the Soviet Victory Monument was completely demolished . In 2023 Parliament adopted a special law prohibiting public demonstrations, marches and pickets throughout Latvian territory on 9 May – save for events that, inter alia , expressed solidarity with the Ukrainian nation (whose national sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity were threatened as result of the Russian Federation’s military aggression) and commemorated those who have suffered and died in Ukraine. Previous events organised by the first applicant 12 .     According to the first applicant, it had organised annual demonstrations in Riga on 9 May and on other dates for several years. The first applicant provided the following information about events that it had organised. The Government disagreed, but did not provide further explanation in that respect. 13.     As regards the event planned for 8 September 2007, on 31   August 2007 Riga City Council prohibited the first applicant and another organisation from organising a demonstration and a “Russian march” ( krievu gājiens ). It was planned to use similar slogans as those in the impugned events in the present case (see paragraph 29 below), and also such slogans as “Citizenship – for everyone! The Russian language – the official language [of Latvia]!” and “Russians – [should have] education [in Latvia] in Russian!”. Riga City Council – citing a 2007 report prepared by the Security Police ( Drošības policija (on 1 January 2019 renamed the State Security Agency – Valsts drošības dienests ) and information distributed via the mass media by the organisers – concluded that the aim of the planned march was not peaceful. If it were to be allowed, public calls for action against the administrative order of the Republic of Latvia could be made and breaches of domestic law could take place. On 6   September 2007, following an appeal by the first applicant against the decision, the Administrative District Court examined, among other issues, the proportionality and necessity of the ban, and upheld it. While the organisers had not made any calls for violence, the court referred to the indication contained in the Security Police’s above-mentioned report that the planned event would pose a serious threat to public safety – in particular, that persons who had participated in similar events and mass riots in other countries (Ukraine and the Russian Federation) were planning to attend the event in Latvia. However, on 12   April 2010, following a further appeal lodged by the first applicant, the Administrative Regional Court lifted the ban imposed on it – in essence, because it deemed that the planned march posed no real threat to national security and that no assessment had been made as to whether the police would be able to prevent the threats identified and to ensure public safety and order during the event; there had been no assessment as to the availability of police resources or the means at their disposal. Some of the risks that had been identified had been averted by the relevant domestic authorities. As the first applicant did not request compensation, the domestic court did not issue any ruling in that respect (see paragraph 64 below). The court terminated the proceedings in respect of the other organisation, which had been dissolved in the meantime. No appeal on points of law appears to have been lodged against that judgment; it took effect on 13   May 2010. 14.     As regards events planned for 9 May 2009, on 29   April 2009 Riga City Council prohibited the first applicant from organising a march from the Square of Latvian Rifleman ( Strēlnieku laukums ) to the Soviet Victory Monument. On 8 May 2009 the Administrative District Court, following a closed hearing (a common practice at that time – see paragraph 64 below), quashed that decision and allowed the march to take place. Only a short extract of that judgment was submitted to the Court; the domestic court’s reasoning in that respect is not available. It appears that the judgment took effect on 30   June 2009. 15 .     On 9 May 2013 a planned demonstration took place. According to the first applicant, it was peaceful. Impugned events 16 .     On 9 May 2014 the first applicant wished to organise a demonstration and a “Russian march” from the Square of Latvian Rifleman to the Soviet Victory Monument. The stated aim of the demonstration was to conduct a “gathering of Russians living in Latvia and to create a human chain between participants”. The stated aim of the march was to express support for “Russian schools” – that is to say for maintaining Russian as the language of instruction (see, for an overview of education reform in Latvia, Valiullina and Others , cited above, §§ 13-20; see also, regarding earlier protests against the education reform conducted in 2003-04, Petropavlovskis v.   Latvia , no.   44230/06, §§   7-8, ECHR 2015). The first applicant indicated that approximately hundred people would attend those events. 17 .     On 23 April 2014 Riga City Council informed the first applicant that the use of sound-amplifying devices – for which it had sought authorisation – was allowed only during demonstrations, but not marches. The first applicant was advised to choose another venue for the march that would present less of an obstacle for vehicles and pedestrians. It was also asked to clarify the intended venue for the demonstration, given that it had wished to hold the demonstration during the march (which was not possible). According to the Government, the first applicant did not respond. According to the first applicant, the doubts in relation to the venue were not substantiated. 18 .     On 6 May 2014 the Security Police issued a report, which was made available to the first applicant. It noted that several organisations, including the first applicant, had applied for authorisation to organise events on 8 and 9   May 2014 in the vicinity of the Soviet Victory Monument. At one of those events (for which the expected attendance was up to 10,000 persons) it was planned to broadcast footage of a military parade from Moscow, and to organise a concert and fireworks. Additionally, a threat of a suicide ‑ bomb attack in the vicinity of the Soviet Victory Monument had been received. The Security Police advised against allowing the events for which the first applicant sought authorisation, as there was a high risk of endangering public order and safety ( sabiedriskā kārtība un drošība ); the organisers could not ensure the maintenance of order during the events. The Security Police stated that the first applicant’s activities were aimed at: “dividing society, [creating] ideological conflicts, ethnic tensions and intolerance in Latvian society, as [its activities] were based on the categorical demonstration of the superiority of the Russian nation and on the indirect rejection of the Latvian nation and language”. Considering the time and venue chosen, there was a possibility that more people might participate in the events than stated in the application; the events might also be attended by people who were radicalised and sought confrontation. The report further submitted that there could be attempts to use the symbols of the former USSR or Nazi Germany, which were prohibited in Latvia. Furthermore, the events organised by the first applicant had previously been attended by members of a Latvian-based Cossack Association ( Pribaltijskij kazačij krug ) (“the Cossack Association”) wearing military uniforms, holding flags and displaying other symbols. Although it was not unlawful to wear military uniforms in public events, it could be perceived negatively by society. The report also stated that the identity of Russian Cossack associations was closely connected with the protection of the interests of Russia – including the participation of volunteers in military conflicts in the region around Latvia. The latter had been demonstrated by the recent arrival of Russian Cossacks on the territory of Ukraine, where they had taken active steps against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. 19 .     On 7 May 2014 the first applicant’s representative, A.Ž., was invited to comment on the Security Police’s report, to present his views and to discuss the arrangements for the planned events and potential problems as to public order and safety with officials from Riga City Council, the Security Police, and the State and municipal police. He clarified that the demonstration would take place only at the Square of Latvian Rifleman. In his view, the concerns expressed by the Security Police were exaggerated. A.Ž. emphasised that previously organised events had taken place without any breaches of domestic law. He asked whether the police could ensure public order and safety. An official from Riga City Council responded that, in the light of the events then unfolding in Ukraine, the situation in 2014 was different from that of previous years. Society perceived the kind of radical slogans used by the first applicant in a more aggravated manner ( saasinātāk ). It was not possible to disregard the Security Police’s report, as its job was to ensure national security. Also, the issue was not whether the law-enforcement authorities could ensure public order and safety, but whether the first applicant’s goals were legitimate. An official from the Security Police informed Riga City Council of an ongoing criminal investigation into the first applicant’s activities with a view to determining whether they amounted to incitement to national, ethnic, racial hatred or discord (section 78 of the Criminal Law). 20.     On the same date Riga City Council, relying on the report by the Security Police, refused to authorise the assemblies for which authorisation was being sought by the first applicant. It referred to the relevant domestic law (see paragraphs 52-60 below) and the case-law of the administrative courts, indicating that freedom of assembly could be restricted with a view to ensuring the interests of other persons, public safety and national security; those were legitimate aims. Restrictions could be justified if there were no alternative means of achieving the same goals that would affect those fundamental rights to a lesser extent. 21 .     Riga City Council examined whether there were grounds to consider that there might be calls for breaking the law, the advocating of violence, nationality-based or racial hatred, or the propagation of “war propaganda” during the above-mentioned events (see paragraph 56 below). Reference was made to two videos posted on the first applicant’s webpage containing calls to participate in the above-mentioned march (see paragraph 29 below). Riga City Council stated that those videos did not depict the stated aim of the march (allegedly in support of “Russian schools”). Instead, those videos confirmed information provided by the Security Police to the effect that the first applicant’s activities were aimed at: “dividing society, [creating] ideological disagreement [and] promoting ethnic tension and intolerance in Latvian society, as its activities [were] aimed at the categorical demonstration of the superiority of Russian nation and at the indirect rejection of the Latvian nation and language” (see paragraph 18 above). 22.     Riga City Council concluded that the planned events were aimed at inciting national hatred, which was prohibited by law. Moreover, the above ‑ mentioned slogans contradicted Chapter I of the Latvian Constitution ( Satversme ) (see paragraph 52 below). Although similar slogans had been used in earlier events organised by the first applicant, in view of the situation unfolding in Ukraine in 2014, those slogans could be regarded as more provocative by society – and possibly even unlawful. 23 .     Referring to the Constitutional Court’s case-law, Riga City Council noted that freedom of assembly could be restricted in order to protect the rights of other persons and also in the event of a clear and direct threat to society. Freedom of assembly could be restricted if there were grounds to consider that an assembly might not be peaceful. Referring to the 2007 Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (prepared by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Co ‑ operation in Europe, in consultation with the European Commission for Democracy though Law of the Council of Europe, first edition, 2007), Riga City Council noted that assemblies were considered peaceful if their organisers had peaceful intentions; events aimed at the public incitement of hatred against racial, ethnic, religious or other groups or aimed at another aggressive goal were unlawful. The State had no positive obligation to ensure that such events could take place. In stating that it had legitimate reasons for the restrictions imposed, Riga City Council referred, firstly, to national security, and, secondly, to public order and safety. Given the first applicant’s goals (as expounded by the Security Police), Riga City Council concluded that the first applicant’s goals were not peaceful, and that the impugned events should be banned in order to protect public order and safety and to prevent intentional provocation with respect to matters of national importance. 24 .     Riga City Council also examined whether the impugned restrictions were necessary and whether more lenient measures were available. Considering the above-mentioned report by the Security Police, Riga City Council concluded that even if it were to change the time, venue, nature and duration of the impugned events, “unwanted side effects” could still not be prevented. Any changes to the time, venue, nature, and duration of the impugned events would not decrease the threat to public order and safety and would not decrease the nature of that threat. Riga City Council therefore did not authorise the impugned events. 25.     On 7 May 2014 the first applicant challenged this ban in the administrative courts. It argued that (i)   the refusal was unlawful and contrary to Article 103 of the Constitution; (ii)   the interpretation of its slogans was incorrect; (iii)   affirmation of the full value of Russian people did not put into question the role of Latvian people and their language; (iv) previous events organised by it had taken place without any breaches of domestic law, and similar slogans had been used at them; and (v)   claims that the impugned planned events had been banned in order to protect public order and safety and to avoid the deliberate provocation of “national issues” were based on unfounded assumptions; thus, the imposed restrictions were not proportionate. The first applicant emphasised that the aim of the planned march was to express support for “Russian schools” and that its intention was to ensure social cohesion. It was not directed against the Constitution, the State language or territorial integrity. There was no proof that the impugned events would not be peaceful; if unrest were indeed to arise as a result of the events, it could be stopped by the State. 26 .     On 8 May 2014 the Administrative District Court held a hearing in the presence of the first applicant’s representative, A.Ž., and a lawyer. Officials from Riga City Council and the Security Police were also present. An official from Riga City Council requested that the court view the videos available on the first applicant’s website. Although no significant breaches had been previously detected in the events organised in the past by the first applicant, given the then-current political situation (viewed within the context of the events in Ukraine and the Security Police’s report), the impugned events displayed “elements of fight” ( cīņas elementi ) and “political position” ( politiskā nostāja ); the planned march was aimed at creating ethnic tension. Even if it were the case that slogans used in the past by the first applicant had only struck an emotional tone within society, the situation was now more tense, and such slogans struck a more provocative and aggressive tone. They could be perceived as supporting events in Latvia that would be similar to those unfolding in Ukraine. The State did not have a positive obligation to allow an assembly where calls could be made against the State ( vēršanās pret valsti ) that contradicted Chapter I of the Constitution. Riga City Council had banned other events in 2014 that could have caused ethnic tension; the first applicant was not the only organisation affected by such a ban. During a closed part of the hearing, an official from the Security Police provided further information and gave details regarding the difference of the situation that had prevailed, respectively, in 2013 and in 2014. The first applicant was invited to ask questions and provide comments in that regard. 27 .     On 8 May 2014 the Administrative District Court upheld the ban of the impugned events and dismissed the first applicant’s appeal. The court reiterated that the Constitution and the Convention protected the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. Freedom of assembly was one of the values of a democratic society. It was an essential precondition for the functioning of a State governed by the rule of law. The State had a duty to ensure the exercise of that freedom. In a democratic country, people enjoyed freedom of assembly and the right to freely express their opinions on issues that they believed were important – even if those opinions did not align with the views of the government. However, those freedoms were not absolute and could be restricted. 28.     As to the lawfulness of the impugned restrictions, the Administrative District Court referred to section 15 1 (2) of the Law on Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets (see paragraph 58 below). Furthermore, it noted that the impugned events had been banned in order to ensure public order and safety and to prevent intentional provocation with respect to matters of national importance (see paragraph 23 above). 29 .     The Administrative District Court went on to examine whether the impugned events posed a threat to public order and safety, and whether the imposed restrictions were proportionate. It described the videos available on the first applicant’s website as follows: “The first video shows war scenes (probably events from World War II) and [still camera] shots from the first applicant’s previously organised events. Representatives of the association [known as] ‘ Pribaltijskij kazačij krug ’ are also visible in the video; they are dressed in Cossack [military] uniforms, [and carrying] Cossack flags and other symbols. The video states: ‘Glory to the heroes!’ and ‘Glory to the Baltic Russian land!’. The second video shows burning flames, accompanied by the noise of rifle shots; a new slogan appears after each rifle shot. The video includes the following text: ‘Russians – the oldest nation ( senākā pamattauta ) of Latvia; Russians [comprise] 60% of the inhabitants of Riga, 40% of the inhabitants of Latvia. Riga – our city; Latvia – our country. The Russian language – the language of Latvia. Russians do not give up!’ The court notes that after the court hearing and the delivery of the summary judgment, the above-mentioned videos were removed from the first applicant’s webpage.” 30 .     Having assessed the videos (which invited people to attend the planned events) and the stated aim of the impugned events, the court held that the videos published on the first applicant’s website had not depicted or even mentioned the stated aim of the events – allegedly that of supporting “Russian schools”. The court established that the slogans that had appeared in the videos had been inconsistent concerning the stated aims of the impugned events. The videos had not contained anything related to “Russian schools”. The Administrative District Court held that the video material had contained information that had been presented in an aggressive manner and that the slogans used therein had been provocative. It considered that the impugned events were not intended to ensure social cohesion (as claimed by the first applicant). On the contrary, they were aimed at dividing society – and creating ideological conflict, ethnic tensions, and intolerance – in Latvia. The information provided on the first applicant’s website was aimed at a categorical demonstration of the superiority of the Russian nation and at the indirect rejection of the Latvian nation and language. Accordingly, the Administrative District Court concluded that the first applicant’s activities (including the impugned events) went against the core values protected under Chapter   I of the Constitution. In view of the already existing tensions regarding sensitive national issues, the first applicant’s open invitation to participate in the march could not be regarded as peaceful. That was evidenced not only by the content of the videos in question, but also by the fact that, during the hearing, the first applicant’s representative had expressly refused to acknowledge their actual contents. He denied that gunshots had been heard in the videos or that they had depicted war scenes, insisting that those videos had conveyed a positive tone. It followed that the first applicant had a different understanding of what constituted a “peaceful gathering”. The court agreed that the planned events constituted a threat to public order and safety. It emphasised that members of the above-mentioned Cossack Association had planned to participate in the impugned events, and it emphasised the risks explained by the Security Police in that regard (see paragraph   18 above). Even though the same videos had been posted a year earlier, they had to be assessed in the light of the current international political situation and the mood in society. If a year previously the slogans contained in the videos could have been seen as merely “emotionally tainted”, in view of the events in Ukraine unfolding now in 2014, any gatherings organised by the first applicant at which such slogans were voiced would not enhance social cohesion but would prompt an opposite reaction in the nationalistically-minded part of society. Accordingly, it was considered that the planned events would not be peaceful, and the restrictions imposed on the first applicant’s freedom of expression and assembly pursued the legitimate aims of the protection of public order and safety. 31 .     As to proportionality, the Administrative District Court noted that anyone whose rights and freedoms were restricted had the right to know the reasons for those restrictions. It was not sufficient to refer in general terms to evidence of the existence of a threat. The threat to public security had to be real. The court also emphasised that only convincing and compelling reasons could justify an interference with the freedom of assembly (it referred to Barankevich v. Russia , no.   10519/03, §   25, 26   July 2007). In the case at issue, it considered that the nature of threats had been assessed; they could not be prevented by merely changing the time, venue, nature and duration of the events. The first applicant was not capable of preventing the above ‑ mentioned threats; the State had to ensure that proposed assemblies had peaceful goals. Referring to the Security Police’s report, the court noted that it was aware of “specific and precise circumstances indicating an existence of the threat and its possible consequences”. Thus, the threat to public security and order was more significant than the restrictions imposed on the first applicant’s freedoms. Measures aimed at ensuring public safety were not compatible with the necessity to organise the events in question: that is, the threat to public safety and security was greater than the possibility for the police and the organiser to prevent breaches of domestic law during those events. In conclusion, the prohibition on organising the impugned events was appropriate and proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting public order and safety. 32 .     The first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. However, on 7   July 2015 the Supreme Court refused to institute proceedings in respect thereof. It held that the Administrative District Court had examined the evidence and views expressed by both parties and had concluded that the interference with the first applicant’s rights had been proportionate. The Supreme Court agreed with that assessment. It further stated that it shared the first applicant’s view that freedom of expression also protected opinions that contradicted or caused offence to others. However, the Supreme Court reiterated that the freedoms of assembly and of expression were not absolute. Freedom of assembly applied only to peaceful assemblies. Such assemblies where the organisers and participants had violent intentions or otherwise denied the founding principles of a democratic society were not protected (the court referred to Fáber v. Hungary , no.   40721/08, §   37, 24   July 2012). In making such assessment, not only formally stated aims but also the actions of the organisation in question and the position it defended had to be taken into account (the court referred to Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v.   Bulgaria , nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, §   90, ECHR 2001‑IX). The Supreme Court also pointed out that under Article   17 of the Convention, any ideas aimed at the destruction of other persons’ rights – for example, hate speech and incitement to ethnic hatred – were not protected. In the present case the aims of the proposed march were not peaceful. 33 .     It was not decisive that there had been no problematic incidents during the earlier events. The warfare in Ukraine, which at the time of the impugned events had only recently started, constituted a serious consideration that had to be taken into account in view of its impact in Latvia. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court had assessed whether less restrictive measures had been available and had agreed with the local municipality that they had not been available. The Supreme Court concluded that there had been no breach of the first applicant’s rights. Facts relating to the second applicant (application no. 2299/16) Background and context of the application 34 .     The chronology of the conflict and events in Crimea (including the city of Sevastopol) and the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of the Donbass area of eastern   Ukraine (which began in the spring of 2014) have been described in Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea ) (dec.) (cited above, §§   32-104 and 149 ‑ 84), and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (cited above, §§   43 ‑ 77). Impugned events 35.     On 5 September 2014 the second applicant requested authorisation for a demonstration to be held on 23 September 2014 in front of the Ukrainian embassy in Riga. The stated aim of the demonstration was to call for the end of the war in south-east Ukraine. The application indicated B.A. as the person actually responsible for keeping order during the demonstration. The second applicant indicated that some fifty people would attend the event. 36 .     On 10 September 2014 the Security Police issued a report stating that B.A. had engaged in activities aimed against the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Those activities appeared to be contrary to the stated aim of the planned 23 September 2014 demonstration (namely, to stop the war in Ukraine), as B.A. had previously expressed support for the self-proclaimed separatist entities in south-east Ukraine and had taken part in activities against the independence of that State. Hence, the demonstration (if allowed to go ahead) would divide society and endanger the democratic order of the State and public safety. Riga City Council informed the second applicant of the aforementioned report, and on 15   September 2014 the second applicant replaced B.A. with another person, G.F., as the person actually responsible for keeping the order during the demonstration. On 18   September 2014 the Security Police issued another report stating that, according to information at its disposal, B.A. was actually organising the demonstration. That was also confirmed by publicly available information. The Security Police reiterated that there had been information about actions taken by B.A. which indicated that the stated aim of the demonstration contradicted its real goal, which was directed against the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine. 37 .     On 22 September 2014 the second applicant and G.F. were invited to attend a meeting with officials of Riga City Council and the State and municipal police. Officials of the Security Police were not present. Riga City Council presented all the information at its disposal to those who attended. The second applicant and G.F. were heard and the arrangements for the event were discussed. Information available on the Internet about the demonstration was also discussed. The second applicant stated that it was she who was organising the event. However, she also revealed that B.A. would participate in the event and that he was helping with its organisation – particularly by disseminating information about it. G.F. added that one could not believe everything that was published by the mass media. An official from Riga City Council noted that the second applicant had failed to express her attitude towards B.A.’s actions and his stated goals. Beliefs held by B.A. and his views on Ukraine were known to all. The official added that since B.A. was helping to disseminate information about the event, it followed that he was acting in the interests of the organisers; the content of that information bolstered the Security Police reports. Lastly, an official from the State police stated that the facts included in the reports by the Security Police had to be taken into account and could not be ignored. 38.     On the same date, Riga City Council refused to authorise the demonstration. It referred to the relevant domestic law (see paragraphs 52 ‑ 58 below) and case-law of the administrative courts, indicating that it was permissible to restrict freedom of assembly with a view to ensuring the interests of other persons, public safety and national security; those were legitimate aims. Restrictions could be justified if there were no alternative means that would impinge upon fundamental rights to a lesser extent. 39 .     Riga City Council referred to publicly available information, taken together with the Security Police’s reports. In particular, it referred to news reports published on 13, 15 and 17 September 2014 on several Internet news portals; in those reports B.A. had presented himself as the organiser of the demonstration and had submitted that the aim of the event was to demand the cessation of the aggression against “the nation of Donbass”. According to the information disseminated by B.A., the goal of the proposed demonstration was to show to the “Russian junta” that Latvian society was against the war in “Novorossiya” and to demand that the Ukrainian government withdraw its armed forces from those territories and recognise the independence of the “Donetsk People’s Republic” (the “DPR”) and the “Lugansk People’s Republic” (the “LPR”). That information confirmed the conclusion reached by the Security Police that B.A. was the real organiser of the event; the real goal of the demonstration was not to stop the war in south-east Ukraine. Rather, B.A. had described the planned event as being intended to express the opinion of Latvian society about, inter alia , internationally unrecognised and unlawful entities. Riga City Council noted that the highest-ranking Latvian officials, expressing the official position of the State, had condemned the armed attack by the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian territory and regarded it as aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, thus undermining the fundamental principles of international law. Latvia had called on the Russian Federation to withdraw immediately its armed forces from the territory of Ukraine, as well as to stop sending weapons and mercenaries to the terrorist groups of the “DPR” and the “LPR”. 40.     Referring to the Constitutional Court’s case-law, Riga City Council noted that freedom of assembly could be restricted in order to protect the rights of other persons and also in the event of a clear and direct threat to society. Freedom of assembly could be restricted if there were grounds to consider that it was not peaceful. Referring to the “Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly” (see paragraph 23 above), Riga City Council noted that assemblies were considered peaceful if their organisers had peaceful intentions; events aimed at the public incitement of hatred against racial, ethnic, religious or other groups or aimed at another aggressive goal were unlawful. The State had no positive obligation to ensure that such events could take place. As regards legitimate aims for the imposed restrictions, Riga City Council referred, firstly, to national security, and, secondly, to public order and safety. Considering that the goals sought by B.A. and his previous activities had not been peaceful, the impugned event should be banned in order to protect the democratic order of the State and public safety. 41 .     Riga City Council also examined whether the impugned restriction was necessary and whether more lenient measures were available. Considering the information provided by the Security Police, Riga City Council concluded that even if it were to change the time, venue, nature and duration of the planned event, “unwanted side effects” could not be prevented. Any changes to the time, venue, nature, and duration of the event would not decrease the threat to the democratic order of the State and public safety, and would not decrease the nature of that threat. 42 .     Despite the prohibition of the planned event, on 23   September 2014 a smaller demonstration (a picket – see paragraph 55 below) was held in front of the Ukrainian embassy. Both the second applicant and B.A. participated. The participants held posters calling for the recognition of the independence of th