CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 24 October 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 60921/17 Elvira Rashitovna DMITRIYEVA against Russia lodged on 16 August 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the local authorities’ refusal to approve the location of a public event planned by the applicant on 26 March 2017 in Kazan. On 24 March 2017 the domestic courts found that the local authorities had not fulfilled their obligation to propose an alternative location or time for the event. Having still received no proposal of an alternative location, the applicant called for holding the event at one of locations initially planned by her. After the event the applicant was arrested and convicted of administrative offences. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were her escorting to the police station and her administrative arrest on 26 March 2017 carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law?   2.     Did the Kazan Town Administration’s decision of 16 March 2017 refusing to approve the locations chosen by the applicant for the public event of 26 March 2017, as well as the applicant’s arrest and the administrative offence proceedings against her, violate her right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective remedy in respect of her complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular: –     Did she have at her disposal an effective remedy which would allow an enforceable judicial decision to be obtained on the authorities’ refusal to approve the location, time or manner of conduct of a public event before its planned date (compare with Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 342-51, 7 February 2017)? In particular, what was the procedure for enforcing the decision of 24 March 2017 in the applicant’s favour? Did its non-enforcement undermine the effectiveness of the remedy? –     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 (compare with Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 352-60, 7 February 2017)?