CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .sDA30A789 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s677DA8A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s90647315 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4954B46 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .sAAA81EB6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:28.35pt; text-align:justify } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB853CD34 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sEC10BA3A { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3102A39 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .sDC43B64C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s51E31EB7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sDC55C16 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11.5pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s434484A1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC3D2A2CF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sAD32DF24 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid } .s132B84CB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s7E0F3F91 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s3C2CFC22 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s684B547D { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s15514A1D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIRST SECTION Application no. 57818/09 Aleksandr Vladimirovich LASHMANKIN against Russia and 14 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES AND THE COMPLAINTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. I.     APPLICATION NO. 57818/09 A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 19 January 2009 Mr Stanislav Markelov, a well-known human rights lawyer, and Ms Anastatsia Baburova, a journalist, were shot dead in Moscow. The applicant and Mr A. decided to hold a commemoration picket near the Memorial to the Victims of Political Repressions in Yuri Gagarin Park, Samara, on 31 January 2009. That location was symbolic and was chosen by them to emphasise that, in their opinion, the murders of Mr Markelov and Ms Baburova were cases of politically motivated repression. On 27 January 2009 the applicant and Mr A. notified the Samara Town Administration of the date, time, place and purposes of the picket. The picket was scheduled to take place from noon to 2 p.m. on 31 January 2009, with the expected participation of seven people. The organisers of the assembly guaranteed that they would take measures to ensure that no breaches of public order were committed. On the same day the Samara Town Administration sent a telegram to the applicant, refusing to approve the venue. The town administration noted that Yuri Gagarin Park was a popular recreational place and many families would be walking there with their small children on Saturday, 31 January 2009. The picket might pose a danger to their health and life. They suggested that the organisers change the location and time of the picket. They also warned the applicant and Mr A. that they might be held liable under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code for a breach of the established procedure for conducting public assemblies. Given that the location and date were important for them, and fearing that holding the picket at the chosen location without the authorities’ approval might result in arrests and administrative proceedings against the participants, the applicant and Mr A. decided to cancel the seven-person picket they had planned. Instead the applicant held a solo picket for which no notification was required. On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the decision of 27   January 2009 before the Leninskiy District Court of Samara. He complained that the decision had amounted to a ban on the picket because the authorities had not suggested any alternative venue or time for it. On 3 April 2009 the Leninskiy District Court rejected his complaint. It found that in its decision of 27 January 2009 the Samara Town Administration had merely suggested that the applicant should change the location and time of the picket rather than imposed a ban on it. That decision had therefore not violated the applicant’s rights. It had also been lawful. On 3 June 2009 the Samara Regional Court upheld the judgment of 3 April 2009 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. B.     Complaints 1.     The applicant complains of a violation of his rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. He alleges that the authorities’ suggestion to change the location and time of the picket, without proposing an alternative venue or time, amounted to a de facto ban on it. Moreover, the location and time chosen by him were crucial for the participants and another venue would not have been as relevant to the picket’s purpose. Lastly, the reasons advanced by the authorities were unconvincing. For the above reasons the suggestion to change the location of the picket constituted an unlawful and unjustified interference with his freedom of assembly and expression. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the judicial proceedings were unfair. In particular, he complains that only the operative part of the judgment of 3 April 2009 was pronounced publicly, while the reasoned judgment was served on him later. II.     APPLICATION NO. 51169/10 A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a gay activist. 1.     Notification of a picket in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow On 13 August 2009 the applicant, together with Ms F. and Mr B., notified the Prefect of the Northern Administrative District of Moscow of their intention to hold a picket from 1 to 2 p.m. on 24 August 2009 in front of the Prefect’s office on Timiryazev Street, which twenty-five people were expected to attend. The aim of the picket was to call for the Prefect’s resignation “in connection with his efforts to incite hatred and enmity towards various social groups, and his failure to comply with electoral laws”. On 17 August 2009 the Prefect of the Northern Administrative District of Moscow refused to approve the venue, noting that another public assembly was planned at the same location from 1 to 2 p.m. on 24 August 2009. On 20 August 2009 the applicant, Ms F. and Mr B. lodged a new notification proposing to hold the picket any time between 10 a.m. and 7   p.m. on 24 or 25 August 2009. An official from the Prefect’s office stamped the notification with a seal that bore the following inscription in red: “to be handed to the applicant personally”. On 21 August 2009 the applicant went to the Prefect’s office to collect the Prefect’s decision. However, the official refused to hand over the decision, explaining that it had been dispatched by post. The applicant never received the letter and had to cancel the picket. On 26 August 2009 the applicant challenged the Prefect’s refusal to approve the venue before the Koptevskiy District Court of Moscow. On 30 October 2009 the Koptevskiy District Court rejected the applicant’s complaints. It found that by decision of 20 August 2009 the Prefect of the Northern Administrative District of Moscow had agreed to the holding of the picket on 25 August 2009 from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. That decision had been sent to the applicant by post. The letter had not been delivered because the applicant did not live at the indicated address. The applicant’s argument that the stamp indicated that the decision was to be handed to him personally was unconvincing. As Russian law did not establish any procedure for notifying such decisions, the Prefect’s office had been entitled to chose any notification method, including sending the decision by post. The fact that the letter had not been delivered had not rendered the authorities’ actions unlawful. Finally, the applicant had not proved that the Prefect’s office had refused to give him the decision when he had gone to collect it. The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that the Prefect’s office had at first informed him that the decision would be handed over to him personally but had then refused to give it to him. The letter containing that decision had not arrived at the local post office until the day of the planned picket. Even if he had received the letter, it would no longer have been possible to hold the picket. On 25 February 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. 2.     Notification of a picket in the Central Administrative District of Moscow On 13 August 2009 the applicant, together with Ms F. and Mr B., notified the Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow of their intention to hold a picket from 1 to 2 p.m. on 24 August 2009 in Novopushkinskiy Park, with the expected participation of twenty-five people. The aims of the picket were the same as those of the picket in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow. On the same day a deputy Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow informed the applicant that another public assembly was planned at the same location and time and suggested that another venue be chosen. On 20 August 2009 the applicant, Ms F. and Mr B. stated their readiness to accept another venue for the picket and proposed five alternative sites for the Prefect to choose from. On the same day a deputy Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow refused to approve any of the locations proposed by the applicant, noting that the applicant, Ms F. and Mr B. were the organisers of another picket at the same time in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow. The applicant challenged that refusal before the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow. He submitted, in particular, that the Deputy Prefect’s finding that he was the organiser of another picket on the same day in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow was incorrect because the authorities had not agreed to that picket. On 2 November 2009 the Taganskiy District Court rejected his complaint. It found, in particular, that the requirement to change the location of the picket had been justified because a presentation of the new Ikea catalogue had been planned in Novopushkinskiy Park at the same time. The refusal to agree to the picket at other venues had also been justified because the applicant had submitted two notifications in respect of pickets at two different locations, in the Central and Northern Administrative Districts, to be held at the same time. Although the applicant had indeed been informed by the Prefect of the Northern Administrative District that he could not hold a picket at the proposed location, he could still have held a picket at another venue in the Northern Administrative District. Had he done so, it would have been impossible for him to organise a picket in the Central Administrative District at the same time. The refusal to agree to the picket in the Central Administrative District had therefore been reasonable and justified. The applicant appealed. He submitted, in particular, that domestic law made no provision for an assembly to be banned on the ground that two notifications had been lodged by the same person. The refusal to approve the picket had therefore been unlawful. He had lodged two notifications with the aim of suggesting alternative venues for the picket. If both of them had been approved, he would have chosen one of the approved sites. He relied on Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 11 of the Convention. On 6 April 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 2   November 2009 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. B.     Complaints 1.     The applicant complains of a violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. He alleges that the refusal to agree to a picket in the Central Administrative District of Moscow and the belated notification of the approval of a picket in the Northern Administrative District of Moscow constituted an unlawful and unjustified interference with his freedom of assembly. 2.     The applicant also complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he did not have any procedure at his disposal that would have allowed him to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned picket. III.     APPLICATIONS NOS. 64311/10 AND 31040/11 A.     The circumstances of the case The four applicants are Ms Peletskaya (the first applicant), Mr   Ponomarev (the second applicant), Mr Ikhlov (the third applicant) and Mr Udaltsov (the fourth applicant). The facts of the case, as submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The meeting on 20 March 2010 and the first applicant’s arrest On 5 March 2010 the second and fourth applicants notified the Moscow Government of their intention to hold a march and a meeting on 20 March 2010. The aim was “to protest against violations of the civil and social rights of the residents of Moscow and the Moscow Region in the spheres of town planning, land distribution, environmental conditions, housing and communal services and judicial protection”. The march was scheduled to start at 2.30 p.m. at Tverskoy Boulevard, from where the participants were to march to Pushkin Square. The notification stated that the participants would cross Tverskaya Street by the underground passage. A meeting would be held at Pushkin Square from 3.30 to 5 p.m. It was expected that 300 people would take part in the march and the meeting. The first and third applicant intended to participate in the meeting and the march. The Moscow Government forwarded the notification to the Moscow Transport Department, which concluded on 10 March 2010 that the march was likely to cause traffic delays and disrupt public transport when it crossed Tverskaya Street. It was therefore necessary to change the route of the march. The Moscow Transport Department then forwarded the notification to the Moscow Security Department. On 12 March 2010 a deputy head of the Moscow Security Department suggested that the applicants should cancel the march and hold a meeting at Bolotnaya Square in order to “avoid any interference with the normal functioning of the public utility services, the activities of commercial organisations, the traffic or the interests of citizens not taking part in assemblies”. On 15 March 2010 the second and fourth applicants asked the Moscow Security Department either to suggest an alternative route for the march or to agree to the meeting in Pushkin Square, in which case they were ready to forgo the march. They argued that the Moscow Security Department had not advanced any reasons in support of their finding that the march and the meeting might interfere with the traffic or the activities of commercial organisations. They also noted that two meetings had recently been held in Pushkin Square and had not caused any disruptions. The Moscow Security Department replied that the march and the meeting in Pushkin Square had not been given official approval and warned the applicants that measures would be taken to prevent them from holding the events. At about 3.30 p.m. on 20 March 2010 about 300 people, including the applicants, gathered in Pushkin Square. The meeting was dispersed by the police and many participants, including the first applicant, were arrested. 2.     Administrative proceedings against the first applicant On 13 April 2010 the Justice of the Peace of the 367th Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of Moscow found the first applicant guilty of a breach of the established procedure for conducting public assemblies, an offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the Administrative Offences Code. The court found that the first applicant had participated in the meeting of 20 March 2010 when it had not been approved by the authorities. Her argument that the authorities had not given reasons for their refusal to approve the meeting was irrelevant. The Justice of the Peace ordered that the applicant pay a fine in the amount of 500 Russian roubles (RUB, about 12.5 euros (EUR)). The applicant appealed to the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. On 24 May 2010 the Tverskoy District Court found it established that the meeting of 20 March 2010 had not been approved and had therefore been unlawful. The authorities had given reasons for their refusal to approve the meeting in Pushkin Square and suggested another venue. Despite the authorities’ refusal to approve the venue, the first applicant had taken part in the meeting, had chanted slogans calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister, Mr Putin, and the Mayor of Moscow, Mr Luzhkov, and had disregarded the repeated orders of the police to stop the unlawful meeting. Finding that the decision 13 April 2010 had been lawful, well reasoned and justified, the court upheld it on appeal. 3.     Judicial review of the refusal to allow the meeting and the march On 15 March 2010 the second, third and fourth applicants challenged the decision of 12   March 2010 before the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow. They submitted that the Moscow Government had not respected the statutory time-limit of three days for giving a reply and had failed to suggest an alternative venue for the march. The Moscow authorities had not advanced convincing reasons for their proposal to cancel the march and change the venue of the meeting. Neither the march nor the meeting would have interfered with the normal life of the city if held at the location chosen by the applicants because no blocking of traffic would have been necessary. They reiterated that two meetings had recently been held in Pushkin Square with official approval and they had gone ahead without any trouble or disruption of the normal life of the residents. The applicants asked for an injunction for the Moscow Government to agree to the meeting and the march. They also requested that their complaint be examined before the planned meeting date. On 9 April 2010 the Tverskoy District Court rejected their complaints, finding that the decision of 12   March 2010 had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. On 23 September 2010 the Moscow City Court quashed the judgment of 9 April 2010 and allowed the applicants’ complaints. It found that the District Court had not examined whether there existed a factual basis for the finding that the meeting and the march planned by the applicants would interfere with the normal life of the city. The Moscow Government had not submitted any evidence in support of that finding. The decision of 12   March 2010 had therefore been unlawful. At the same time, it was impossible to allow the request for an injunction to agree to the meeting and the march because the planned date had passed months ago. On 20 October 2010 an acting Mayor of Moscow lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 23 September 2010. He argued that the Moscow Government had submitted evidence in support of the decision not to agree to the march and the meeting planned by the applicants, in the form of a letter from the Moscow Transport Department dated 10   March 2010 stating that the march might cause delays in public transport when it crossed Tverskaya Street. He further argued that it would be difficult for 300 participants to cross Tverskaya Street by the underground passage, which was always crowded with passers-by and street vendors. An alternative venue for the meeting had been proposed. On 1 November 2010 the second, third and fourth applicants submitted in reply that the march had been scheduled during a weekend when vehicular and pedestrian traffic was insignificant. Crossing Tverskaya Street by the underground passage would therefore not have caused any inconvenience to passers-by or street vendors or their clients, or caused delays in public transport. In any event, the traffic in the centre of Moscow was often blocked by the authorities to permit the staging of sports or cultural events. On 12 November 2010 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a hearing. The applicants and a representative of the Moscow Government made oral submissions and were then requested to leave the courtroom. Several minutes later a bailiff announced to the applicants that the Presidium of the Moscow City Court had quashed the judgment of 23   September 2010 and had rejected their complaints. He also announced that the text of the judgment would be sent to them by post. The judgment of 12 November 2010 was sent to the applicants by post on 16 March 2011. It read as follows. The Presidium of the Moscow City Court found that the Moscow Government’s refusal to agree to the march and the meeting had been lawful and justified. It would have been impossible for the participants in the march to cross Tverskaya Street by the underground passage, which was always crowded with passers-by and street vendors. The participants would therefore have had to cross the roadway, thereby delaying public transport. To protect the interests of citizens who did not take part in public assemblies, the Moscow Government had suggested an alternative venue for the meeting, at the same time requiring the organisers to cancel the march. That decision had not violated the applicants’ rights. The Presidium therefore quashed the appeal judgment of 23 September 2010 and upheld the judgment of 9 April 2010 rejecting the applicants’ complaints. B.     Complaints 1.     The applicants complain of a violation of their rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. They argue that domestic law is not sufficiently clear and foreseeable in its application. In particular, although domestic law permits the authorities to make a reasoned suggestion for changing the venue of an assembly, it does not specify in which cases such suggestions may be made. The law does not prohibit the holding of assemblies at the location proposed by the applicants. The authorities did not submit any evidence in support of their finding that the march and the meeting would hinder traffic or cause serious inconvenience to other citizens. The authorities’ suggestion that they cancel the march and change the venue of the meeting therefore had no basis in domestic law. Moreover, domestic law does not provide for any means of resolving disputes that might arise if the organisers of the assembly do not agree with the venue suggested by the authorities. Also, the legitimate aim of protecting public order could have been achieved by other means than dispersing the meeting. The dispersal of the assembly, the first applicant’s arrest and the administrative proceedings against her were therefore disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. 2.     The second, third and fourth applicants complain under Article 13 of the Convention that they did not have any procedure at their disposal that would have allowed them to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned assembly. 3.     The second, third and fourth applicants also complain, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the judgment of 23 September 2010 was quashed by way of supervisory review, that the judgment of 12 November 2010 was not pronounced publicly and that the judges were biased. IV.     APPLICATION NO. 4618/11 A.     The circumstances of the case The two applicants are Mr Ponomarev (the first applicant) and Mr Ikhlov (the second applicant). The facts of the case, as submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. On 19 January 2009 Mr Stanislav Markelov, a well-known human rights lawyer, and Ms Anastatsia Baburova, a journalist, were shot dead in Moscow. The applicants decided to commemorate the anniversary of their murder. On 24 December 2009 the first applicant, Ms A. and Mr S. notified the Moscow Government of their intention to hold a march and a meeting on 19   January 2010 in the centre of Moscow, which 400 people were expected to attend. The aims of the march and the meeting were as follows: “To commemorate the human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov, the journalist Anastasia Baburova and other victims of ideological and political terror; To protest against politically and ideologically motivated murders, against racism, ethnic and religious hatred, and against recourse to chauvinism and xenophobia in politics and social life.” The second applicant intended to participate in the march and the meeting. On 11 January 2010 the Moscow Security Department replied that, in accordance with the Public Assemblies Act, the notification had to be submitted no earlier than fifteen days and no later than ten days before the intended public assembly. As the organisers had submitted their notification outside that time-limit, they were not allowed to hold the march and the meeting. On 13 January 2010 the applicants challenged the decision of 11 January 2010 before the Tverskoy District Court. They submitted that the date of the meeting and the march was very important for them because it was the anniversary date of the murders. No other date would have the same impact. The time-limit for lodging a notification fell between 4 and 9 January 2010. However, because of the New Year and the Christmas holidays, the days from 1 to 10   January were officially non-working days, so it was not possible to lodge a notification within the time-limit established by law. The applicants had accordingly lodged the notification on 24   December 2009, that is fifteen working days before the intended march and meeting. Any other interpretation of the domestic law would mean that no assemblies could be held in the period from 10 to 21   January every year. They also argued that the Moscow Security Department had not respected the three-day time-limit for a reply established by the domestic law. On 27 February 2010 the Tverskoy District Court rejected the applicants’ complaints. It found that the decision of 11 January 2010 had been lawful and based on sufficient reasons. The applicants had not respected the time-limit for lodging a notification established by domestic law and could not therefore have been entitled to hold the march and the meeting. Moreover, given that they had later been allowed to hold a picket on the same day, their freedom of assembly had not been violated. The applicants appealed. They reiterated their previous arguments and added that the picket approved by the authorities was not an adequate substitute for a meeting and a march. Firstly, the authorities had agreed to the participation of 200 people instead of 400. And secondly, and more importantly, the use of sound amplifying equipment was not allowed during a picket, which had prevented the organisers and participants from making public speeches. Moreover, the documents relating to the picket had not been included in the case file or examined during the hearing. The applicants had not been given an opportunity to present their arguments on that issue. On 10 June 2010 the Moscow City Court upheld the judgment of 27   February 2010 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. B.     Complaints 1.     The applicants complain of a violation of their rights guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention. They submit, in particular, that the refusal to agree to the march and the meeting was unlawful and did not pursue any legitimate aim. The interpretation of domestic law made by the authorities and the courts in their case was too formalistic. It deprived them of any possibility of holding a meeting or a march on 19   January 2010. 2.     The applicants also complain, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have at their disposal any procedure that would have allowed them to obtain a final decision prior to the date of the planned public assembly. V.     APPLICATION NO. 19700/11 A.     The circumstances of the case The four applicants are Ms Yefremenkova (the first applicant), Mr   Milkov (the second applicant), Mr Gavrikov (the third applicant) and Mr   Sheremetyev (the fourth applicant). The facts of the case, as submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. The applicants are gay human rights activists. 1.     2010 assemblies (a)     Notifications concerning a march, a meeting and pickets and the authorities’ refusal to approve them (i)     Notification of a march and a meeting On 15 June 2010 the applicants notified the St Petersburg Security Department of their intention to hold a Gay Pride march and a subsequent meeting on 26 June 2010, the anniversary of the start of the gay rights movement in the United States of America on 26   June 1969. The march and the meeting were scheduled to take place in the centre of St Petersburg, with 500 to 600 people expected to attend. The aim was “to draw the attention of society to the violations of the rights of homosexuals, and the attention of society and the authorities to the widespread discrimination against homosexuals, homophobia, fascism and xenophobia”. On 17 June 2010 the St Petersburg Security Department refused to agree to the meeting and the march. It noted that the route chosen by the applicants was a busy road with many parked cars, and construction work was under way. The march might therefore obstruct the road and pedestrian traffic and distract drivers, which might in turn cause road accidents. Moreover, another meeting had already been approved in the same place at the same time. Finally, the applicants’ meeting was scheduled to take place in the vicinity of the Constitutional Court building. In accordance with section 8 of the Public Assemblies Act it was prohibited to hold assemblies in the vicinity of court buildings. The Security Department suggested that the applicants change the venue of their march and meeting, and warned them that if they failed to obtain the authorities’ approval for another venue they would not be entitled to organise the planned events. On 18 June 2010 the applicants suggested two alternative venues for the march and subsequent meeting. They also informed the Security Department of their readiness to renounce the march and simply hold a meeting, and suggested a location for the meeting. On 21 June 2010 the St Petersburg Security Department again refused to approve the meeting and the march. It found that the venues chosen by the applicants were not suitable for the following reasons. One of the locations was not large enough to accommodate 600 people. The participants would hinder access to a bus stop, a shop and a bicycle rental service. Moreover, “Youth day” celebrations were planned in the nearby park. At another venue the march might obstruct the traffic and cause traffic jams on the road which government delegations and guests would be taking on 26 June 2010 to attend the celebrations of the three-hundredth anniversary of the town of Tsarskoe Selo. Moreover, the march might hinder citizens’ access to their homes or shops. Lastly, on the same day the end of the school year would be celebrated by students on the nearby campus. The third location suggested by the applicants was not suitable either because celebrations to mark the end of the school year would be held there too. The Security Department suggested that the applicants change the venue of the march and meeting. The first applicant was informed about that decision on the evening of 22   June 2010 and received a copy of it on the morning of 23 June 2010. On 23 June 2010 the applicants suggested three new alternative venues to the St Petersburg Security Department, for either a march and a meeting or a meeting only. On the same day the St Petersburg Security Department refused to approve the meeting and the march for a third time. It found that the applicant’s reply had been submitted outside the time-limit established by section 5 of the Public Assemblies Act. That section provided that a reply to the authorities’ suggestion to change the location of the assembly should be submitted no later than three days before the intended assembly. Having missed that time-limit, the applicants were not entitled to organise the meeting and the march on 26 June 2010. (ii)     Notifications of pickets Despairing of obtaining official approval for a march and a meeting, on 22 June 2010 the applicants notified the Administrations of the Petrogradskiy, Tsentralniy, Moskovskiy and Vasileostrovskiy Districts of St Petersburg of their intention to hold a picket with the same aims on 26   June 2010. In each Administrative District a location was chosen to accommodate about forty participants. On the same day the Petrogradskiy District Administration refused to agree to the picket because cultural and sports events were scheduled to be held at the location chosen by the applicants. Moreover, the applicants had not obtained the consent of the private sports complex in whose grounds the intended picket was to take place. The Moskovskiy District Administration refused to agree to the picket because a rock festival and a circus inauguration event were scheduled to take place at the location chosen by the applicants. The Vasileostrovskiy District Administration did not allow the picket because a film was scheduled to be shot in that District all day, including at the location selected by the applicants. Lastly, on 23 June 2010 the Tsentralniy District Administration also refused to allow the picket because another (unspecified) event had already been approved at the same location and time as the applicants’ event. Each District Administration suggested that the applicants change the location or time of their picket. (iii)     Anti-gay meeting On 26 June 2010 the Young Guard, the youth wing of the pro-government party United Russia, organised a meeting in support of “family and traditional family values”. That meeting was approved by the authorities and was held at one of the locations which, when proposed by the applicants for their Gay Pride march, had been rejected as unsuitable by the St Petersburg Security Department’s decision of 17 June 2010. (b)     Judicial review of the refusals to approve the meeting, the march and the pickets (i)     Judicial review of the refusals to approve the meeting and the march On 24 June 2010 the first applicant challenged the St Petersburg Security Department’s decisions of 17 and 21 June 2010 before the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg. She complained that the Security Department had refused, for various reasons, to approve every venue suggested by the organisers for the march and the meeting. It was significant that the authorities alone were in possession of full and updated information about any construction work or other events planned in the city. That being so, they should have suggested a venue where the march and the meeting could take place. They had not, however, made any such suggestion, confining their decisions to rejecting all the numerous locations proposed by the organisers. The first applicant also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation. The first hearing was scheduled for 2 July 2010. On that day the first applicant submitted additional arguments in writing. She complained that the Security Department’s decision of 23 June 2010 had also been unlawful and unjustified. She argued, firstly, that the applicants’ reply to the Security Department’s suggestion to change the venue had been submitted within the three-day time-limit established by the Public Assemblies Act. To be precise, it had been lodged on 23 June 2010, that is three days before the intended march, which was scheduled for 26   June 2010. Secondly, the applicants could not have replied earlier because they had not received the Security Department’s decision of 21   June 2010 requiring them to change the venue until 23 June 2010. The first applicant further submitted that the reasons advanced by the Security Department in its decisions of 17 and 21   June 2010 had not been sufficient. The Security Department had referred to certain inconveniences that might be caused by the march and the meeting, such as obstructing the traffic, or to other events planned in the city on the same day. However, under section   12 of the Public Assemblies Act it was the authorities’ responsibility to take steps to ensure that public order was respected and that public assemblies could proceed smoothly, including by regulating or blocking traffic. She also referred to the Constitutional Court’s Ruling of 2   April 2009, which held that neither logistical difficulties that might be encountered by the authorities, nor a certain level of disruption of the ordinary life of citizens could serve as a valid reason for refusing to approve an assembly. On 13 July 2010 the Smolninskiy District Court rejected the first applicant’s complaints. It found that the Security Department had provided convincing reasons for the decisions of 17 and 21 June 2010 refusing to agree to the meeting and the march. Domestic law did not impose an obligation on the authority refusing to approve a location or time for an assembly to suggest an alternative location or time. As to the decision of 23   June 2010, the court found that had also been lawful and justified as the first applicant had missed the time-limit for replying to the suggestion to change the venue. She had not proved that she had been notified belatedly of the decision of 21 June 2010; the list of incoming calls showing that she had indeed received a call from the Security Department late in the evening of 22 June 2010 could not serve as proof of the belated notification. Pursuant to section 12 of the Public Assemblies Act, the authorities had three days to make a reasoned suggestion about a change of the time or location of an assembly. It was logical, therefore, that the reply to a suggestion to change a venue should be lodged no later than three days before the intended assembly. The first applicant had missed that time-limit which, in accordance with the Civil Code, “starts to run on the day following the particular date or event which sets it in motion”. Lastly, given that the Security Department had not banned the meeting and march planned by the first applicant, but merely required her to change the venue, her freedom of assembly had not been breached. On 30 August 2010 the St Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. (ii)     Judicial review of the refusals to approve the pickets On different dates in August, September and November 2010 the first applicant challenged the refusals of the authorities of the Petrogradskiy, Tsentralniy, Moskovskiy and Vasileostrovskiy Districts of St   Petersburg to allow the pickets, arguing that the refusals had not been substantiated by sufficient reasons and that the district authorities had not suggested alternative venues for the pickets. She also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation. On 6 October 2010 the Leninskiy District Court of St Petersburg held that the decision of 23 June 2010 of the Tsentralniy District Administration had been unlawful. It found that the other assembly to which the District Administration had referred in its decision was to finish before the applicant’s picket was due to begin. The authorities’ refusal had therefore been unjustified. Further, relying on the Constitutional Court’s Ruling of 2   April 2009, the District Court found that, when refusing to agree to the picket, the district administration had an obligation to suggest an alternative venue. No other venue had been proposed, however. On 18 October 2010 the Petrogradskiy District Court of St Petersburg held that the Petrogradskiy District Administration’s decision of 22 June 2010 had been unlawful. It did find that the reasons advanced by the district administration for their refusal to allow the picket at the location and time chosen by the applicants had been convincing. In particular, it had been established that on 26 June 2010 the location in question had been the meeting point for the departure of children to sports camps. A picket in favour of homosexual rights “would not have furthered the development of their morals”. By contrast, the requirement to obtain the consent of the private sports complex in the grounds of which the intended picket was to take place had no basis in domestic law. Nor could concerns for public order and the safety of the participants serve as a justification for the refusal to allow the picket, because it was the joint responsibility of the authorities and the organisers to guarantee public order and the safety of all involved. At the same time, the district administration had not suggested an alternative location or time for the picket, which it was obliged to do pursuant to the Constitutional Court’s Ruling of 2 April 2009. The failure to suggest an alternative location or time had deprived the first applicant of any possibility to have the picket approved. Lastly,