CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 avril 2018

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 16 April 2018   THIRD SECTION Application no. 44570/11 Anna Vladimirovna KOMAROVA against Russia lodged on 11 July 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Anna Vladimirovna Komarova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Krasnogorsk. She is represented before the Court by Mr D. Bartenev, a lawyer practising in St Petersburg. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 2 November 2010 the applicant, an LGBT rights activist, notified the Prefect of the Central Administrative District of Moscow of her intention to hold a picket together with ten other persons on 9 November 2010 in the vicinity of the Council of Europe Office in Moscow, in order to express their support for the Court’s judgment in the case of Alekseyev v.   Russia (nos. 4916/07 and 2 others, 21 October 2010). On 8 November 2010 the Prefect refused to approve the venue. The applicant decided not to hold the picket. Three days later she lodged a complaint under Chapter 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the CCP) with the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow challenging the lawfulness of the refusal. On 22 November the District Court dismissed her complaint. On 2   February 2011 the Moscow City Court upheld this decision on appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice For the relevant domestic law and practice, see Lashmankin and Others v.   Russia , nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§   216, 218-42, 253-61, 276 ‑ 88, 7   February 2017; Alekseyev , cited above, §§ 49 and 50. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 11 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention about the banning of the picket and under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention about the absence of an effective domestic remedy against the alleged violation of her right to freedom of peaceful assembly. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Court’s findings under Article 13 of the Convention in the cases of Alekseyev v. Russia (nos.   4916/07 and 2 others, §§ 97-100, 21 October 2010) and Lashmankin and Others v. Russia (nos.   57818/09 and 14 others, §§   342-61, 7 February 2017), has the applicant in the present case had at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   2.     If no effective remedy was available to the applicant, has she complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention (see Artyomov v. Russia , no. 14146/02, §§ 108-109, 27   May 2010)?   3.     If the applicant has complied with the six-month requirement:   -     has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article   11 of the Convention?   -     has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights under Article 11 of the Convention, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention?