CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 27 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 48310/16 Grigoriy Nikolayevich KABLIS against Russia lodged on 28 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the local authorities’ refusal to approve the location of a public event planned by the applicant. The authorities found that it was prohibited by local legislation to hold public events at the location chosen by the applicant and proposed that the event be held at one of the special locations designated by the regional authorities for holding public events. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the authorities’ decision before the courts. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the Syktyvkar Town Administration’s decision of 21 September 2015 refusing to approve the location chosen by the applicant for the public event of 25 September 2015 violate the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, is a general ban on holding public events at the location chosen by the applicant “necessary in a democratic society”? What is the justification for the ban on holding public events at that location? The parties are requested to provide an extract from the local legislation prohibiting the holding of public events at that location.   3.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, does the scope of judicial review under the Code of Administrative Procedure include an assessment of “necessity in a democratic society” and “proportionality” of the local authorities’ proposal to change the location of a public event?