Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG and PERSON . The ORG request to represent themselves was granted . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .

NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants secured a bank loan taken out by a private company ( “ company F ” ) with a mortgage on their apartment . The loan was also secured by a mortgage on real estate belonging to the S family .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( which became final in DATE ) the Covasna County Court allowed an action lodged by the bank against its debtors for the payment of the outstanding interest on the loan granted to company F. The applicants were parties to the proceedings , together with the other debtors . The court ordered the applicants to pay jointly and severally the sum of MONEY ( ROL ) .

In DATE insolvency proceedings were initiated against company F and the bank was registered on the LOC list . However , the bank preferred to initiate enforcement proceedings against the applicants . Thus , on DATE ORG allowed the bank ’s request and ordered the applicants to pay the outstanding debt , with related interest and the creditor bank ’s enforcement costs .

On DATE the applicants deposited ROL CARDINAL with ORG to be made available to the creditor bank . On DATE they challenged the decision of the bank ’s enforcement officer to sell their apartment at auction regardless of their intention to pay the amount for which they were liable . They also asked for the auction to be suspended .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ challenge , on the grounds that they had not paid the interest on ORG and the enforcement costs .

The applicants appealed , maintaining that they could not pay the interest and the enforcement costs , as that amount had never been calculated or notified to them . On DATE their appeal was dismissed by ORG without an examination of its merits on the ground that the applicants had not lodged their appeal within the statutory timelimit .

On DATE the bank ’s enforcement officer set the auction date for CARDINAL DATE .

On account of an insufficient number of bidders for the apartment , the enforcement officer reduced the minimum price to ROL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) and set another auction date for DATE .

The apartment was bought at the minimum price established by the enforcement officer , and the deed of adjudication was issued on DATE .

On DATE the bank ’s enforcement officer issued the final order releasing the proceeds from the sale ( procesul verbal de eliberare al prețului ) .

The applicants challenged the enforcement measure in court . ORG refused to register their complaint , which was sent back on DATE with the indication that it should be lodged with the issuing body . The ORG complaint was lodged with the creditor bank on DATE . According to the applicants their complaint against the final order releasing the proceeds from the sale was never examined .

NORP The buyer of the applicants’ apartment asked for the applicants to be evicted . By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE , her request was allowed by ORG . On DATE the applicants were ordered to vacate the apartment .

The applicants contested in court all the enforcement measures taken against them , including their eviction from the apartment . They also asked for the deed of adjudication of DATE to be revoked and for their complaint against the order releasing the proceeds from the sale under the deed of adjudication to be examined . They claimed that the deed of adjudication was null and void , as they had paid their debt to the bank before their apartment was sold .

On DATE ORG dismissed their complaint as unfounded . It dismissed the applicants’ complaint against the deed of adjudication on the ground of res judicata . It held that the submissions made by the applicants against the deed of adjudication had already been examined by the court in its final judgment of DATE and therefore they could not be examined again . It also held that the eviction order had been issued on the basis of the final deed of adjudication in accordance with legal requirements .

The applicants appealed , claiming , inter alia , that their submissions against the deed of adjudication could not be dismissed on the ground of res judicata . On DATE the ORG dismissed their appeal on points of law . It held that all the enforcement measures against the applicants were lawful and that as long as the applicants had not paid the whole debt to the creditor bank the debt secured against their flat could accordingly be enforced and they could not ask for cessation of enforcement . Further to the first - instance court ’s finding that the judgment of DATE had the status of res judicata , the appeal court held that although the CARDINAL sets of proceedings had not had the same object they had the same purpose : annulment of the writ of execution and cessation of the enforcement measures against the applicants . Moreover , the arguments raised by the applicants in both proceedings were the same . Thus , the applicants’ main argument that they had paid their debt to the bank could not be raised at that stage of enforcement , when the deed of adjudication had become a writ of execution in the eviction proceedings .

The provisions regarding enforcement in civil and commercial matters were contained in ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , as in force at the material time .

Under LAW ORG , enforcement could only be effected where there was a valid authority to execute an obligation which was certain , whose quantum had been fixed and which had fallen due . The debt was liquid if its quantum was determined by the debt instrument itself or by other uncertified deeds , issued by the debtor or acknowledged by it .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provided that a debtor under an authority to execute could institute proceedings in order to raise objections either against the creditor ’s right to enforcement or against particular measures of enforcement .

The writ of execution could be challenged , but only in respect of its meaning , scope and enforcement and not its validity regarding the merits . A complaint could be lodged against the refusal of the enforcement authority to carry out an enforcement measure in the conditions stipulated by law .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provided that if the court allowed the objection against enforcement , depending on the case , it would either set aside the writ of execution or order its amendment , annulment or the cessation of enforcement , or the annulment or explanation of the writ of execution or the implementation of the enforcement order which the relevant authority was refusing to carry out .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13+11 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 11+10 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

On DATE Mr PERSON , a well - known human rights lawyer , and PERSON , a journalist , were shot dead in GPE .

The applicant and PERSON decided to hold a commemoration “ picket ” ( “ пикет ” ) near the PERSON to ORG in LOC , GPE , on CARDINAL DATE . The location was symbolic , and was chosen by them to emphasise that , in their opinion , the murders of PERSON PERSON and PERSON were cases of politically motivated repression .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON notified ORG date , time , place and purposes of the “ picket ” . The event was scheduled to take place from TIME on CARDINAL DATE , with CARDINAL people expected to take part .

On DATE ORG sent a telegram and a letter to the applicant , refusing to approve the venue . The town administration noted that PERSON was a popular place of recreation and many families would be walking there with their small children on DATE , CARDINAL DATE . The “ picket ” might pose a danger to their health and life . They proposed that the organisers change the location and time of the event . They also warned the applicant and PERSON that they might be held liable under LAW for a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events . According to the Government , a copy of the Mayor ’s decree of DATE listing the locations in GPE suitable for public events was attached to the letter . The Government did not submit a copy of the letter or the decree .

Given that the location and date were important to them , and fearing that holding the event at the chosen location without the authorities’ approval might result in arrests and administrative proceedings against the participants , the applicant and PERSON decided to cancel the CARDINAL - person “ picket ” they had planned . Instead , the applicant held a solo “ picket ” , for which no notification was required .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG . He complained that the decision had amounted to a ban on the event , because the authorities had not proposed any alternative venue or time for it .

On DATE ORG rejected his complaint . It found that in its decision of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON authorities had merely proposed that the applicant should change the location and time of the event , rather than imposing a ban on it . That decision had therefore not violated the applicant ’s rights . It had also been lawful . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

NORP The applicant is a gay rights activist .

On DATE the applicant , together with PERSON and PERSON , notified the Prefect of GPE of GPE of their intention to hold a “ picket ” from TIME on CARDINAL DATE in front of the ORG ’s office on FAC , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the event was to call for the ORG ’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 DATE the Prefect of GPE of GPE refused to approve the venue , noting that another public event was planned at the same location from TIME on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant , PERSON and PERSON lodged a new notification proposing to hold the event at any time TIME . An official from the ORG ’s office stamped the notification with a seal that bore the following inscription in red : “ to be handed to the applicant personally ” .

According to the applicant , on DATE he went to the ORG ’s office to collect the 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 event .

On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG ’s refusal to approve the venue before ORG of GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaints . It found that by his decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG had agreed to the holding of the “ picket ” on DATE from TIME 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 NORP law did not establish any procedure for notifying applicants of such decisions , the ORG ’s office had been entitled to choose any notification method , including sending the decision by post . The fact that the letter had not been delivered did not render the authorities’ actions unlawful . Lastly , the court found that the applicant had not proved that the ORG ’s office had refused to give him the decision when he had gone to collect it , although there is no evidence in the judgment that the ORG ’s representative contested that matter .

The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that the ORG ’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 DATE of the planned event . Even if he had received the letter , it would no longer have been possible to hold the event .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

On DATE the applicant , together with PERSON and PERSON , notified the Prefect of LOC of GPE of their intention to hold a “ picket ” from TIME on CARDINAL DATE in FAC , with CARDINAL people expected to take part . The aims of the event were the same as those of the “ picket ” in LOC of GPE .

On DATE a deputy prefect of LOC of GPE informed the applicant that another public event was planned at the same location and time , and proposed that another venue be chosen .

On DATE the applicant , PERSON and PERSON stated their readiness to accept another venue for their event , and proposed CARDINAL alternative sites for the Prefect to choose from .

On DATE the deputy prefect refused to approve any of the locations proposed by the applicant , noting that the applicant , PERSON and Mr B. were the organisers of another “ picket ” at the same time in LOC of GPE .

On DATE the applicant challenged that refusal before ORG of GPE . He submitted , in particular , that the deputy prefect ’s finding that he was the organiser of another “ picket ” on DATE in LOC of GPE was incorrect , because the authorities had not agreed to that “ picket ” .

On DATE ORG rejected his complaint . It found , in particular , that the proposal to change the location of the “ picket ” was lawful because a presentation of the new ORG catalogue had been planned in FAC at the same time . The refusal to agree to the “ picket ” at other venues had also been lawful because the applicant had submitted CARDINAL notifications in respect of “ pickets ” at CARDINAL different locations , in the LOC and Northern Administrative Districts , to be held at the same time . Although the applicant had indeed been informed by ORG that he could not hold a “ picket ” at the proposed location , he could still have held a “ picket ” at another venue in LOC . Had he done so , it would have been impossible for him to organise a “ picket ” to be held in LOC at the same time . The refusal to agree to the “ picket ” in LOC had therefore been well reasoned .

The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that domestic law made no provision for a public event to be banned on the ground that CARDINAL notifications had been lodged by the same person . The refusal to approve the “ picket ” had therefore been unlawful . He had lodged CARDINAL notifications with the aim of proposing alternative venues for the event . If both of them had been approved , he would have chosen CARDINAL of the approved sites . He relied on LAW .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

The CARDINAL applicants are Mr ORG ( the first applicant ) and PERSON PERSON ( the second applicant ) .

The applicants decided to commemorate the anniversary of the murder of Mr PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the first applicant , PERSON and PERSON notified ORG of their intention to hold a march and a meeting on DATE in the centre of GPE , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aims of the march and the meeting were as follows :

“ To commemorate the human rights lawyer PERSON , the journalist PERSON 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 attend the march and the meeting .

On DATE ORG replied that , in accordance with LAW , the notification had to be submitted no DATE and DATE before the intended public event . As the organisers had submitted their notification outside that time - limit , they were not allowed to hold the march and the meeting .

On DATE the applicants challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG . They submitted that the date of the meeting and the march was very important for them because it was the anniversary of the murders . No other date would have the same impact . The time - limit for lodging a notification fell CARDINAL . However , because of the New Year and DATE , DATE from DATE 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 DATE , that is DATE working days before the intended march and meeting . Any other interpretation of the domestic law would mean that no public events could be held in the period from DATE . They also argued that ORG had not observed the DATE time - limit for a reply established by the domestic law .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints . It found that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful . The applicants had not observed the time - limit for lodging a notification established by domestic law and were not therefore entitled to hold the march and the meeting . Moreover , given that they had later been allowed to hold a “ picket ” on DATE , 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 an event with CARDINAL people attending instead of CARDINAL . 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 .

The CARDINAL applicants are Mr ORG ( the first applicant ) , PERSON PERSON ( the second applicant ) and Mr ORG ( the third applicant ) .

On DATE the first and third applicants notified ORG of their intention to hold a march and a meeting on DATE . The aim was “ to protest against violations of the civil and social rights of the residents of GPE and LOC in the spheres of town planning , land distribution , environmental conditions , housing and communal services , and judicial protection ” . The march was scheduled to start at TIME at FAC , from where the participants were to march to FAC . The notification stated that the participants would cross FAC by the underground passage . A meeting would be held at FAC from TIME It was expected that CARDINAL people would take part in the march and the meeting . The second applicant intended to attend the meeting and the march .

ORG forwarded the notification to ORG , which concluded on DATE that the march was likely to cause traffic delays and disrupt public transport when it crossed FAC . It was therefore necessary to change the route of the march . ORG then forwarded the notification to ORG .

On DATE a deputy head of ORG proposed that the applicants should cancel the march and hold a meeting at FAC in order to “ avoid any interference with the normal functioning of the public utility services , the activities of commercial organisations , traffic or the interests of citizens not taking part in public events ” .

On DATE the first and third applicants asked ORG either to propose an alternative route for the march or to agree to hold the meeting in FAC , in which case they were ready to forgo the march . They argued that ORG had not advanced any reasons in support of their finding that the march and the meeting might interfere with traffic or the activities of commercial organisations . They also noted that CARDINAL meetings had recently been held in FAC and had not caused any disruption .

ORG replied that the march and the meeting in FAC had not been given official approval , and warned the applicants that measures would be taken to prevent them from holding the events .

On DATE the applicants challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG of GPE . They submitted that ORG had not observed the statutory time - limit of DATE for giving a reply and had failed to propose an alternative venue for the march . The GPE authorities had not put forward weighty 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 off of traffic would have been necessary . They reiterated that CARDINAL meetings had recently been held in FAC with official approval ; they had gone ahead without any trouble or disruption of normal life for residents . The applicants asked for an injunction for ORG to agree to the meeting and the march . They also requested that their complaint be examined before the planned meeting date .

According to the Government , the ORG complaint , sent by post , was received by ORG on DATE .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL people , including the applicants , gathered in FAC . The police issued a warning , through loudspeakers , that the meeting was unlawful and that the participants should disperse . The meeting was then dispersed by force by the police and many of those present were arrested .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints , finding that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful . The text of the judgment did not contain any reply to the ORG argument that ORG had not observed the statutory DATE for a reply .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE on appeal and allowed the ORG complaints . It found that ORG 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 . ORG had not submitted any evidence in support of that finding . The decision of DATE had not therefore been well reasoned . 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 DATE .

DATE . On DATE ORG lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE . It argued that it 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 ORG dated DATE stating that the march might cause delays in public transport when it crossed FAC . He further argued that it would be difficult for CARDINAL participants to cross FAC by the underground passage , which was always crowded with passers - by and street vendors . An alternative venue for the meeting had been proposed .

On DATE the applicants submitted in reply that the march had been scheduled during DATE , when vehicular and pedestrian traffic was insignificant . ORG 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 , traffic in the centre of GPE was often blocked by the authorities to permit the staging of sports or cultural events .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the appeal judgment of DATE and upheld the judgment of DATE rejecting the ORG complaints . It found that ORG refusal to agree to the march and the meeting had been lawful and well reasoned . It would have been impossible for the participants in the march to cross FAC by the underground passage , which was always crowded with passers - by and street vendors . The participants would therefore have had to cross the road , thereby delaying public transport . To protect the interests of citizens who did not take part in public events , ORG had proposed 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 .

According to the applicants , at the end of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE only the operative part of the judgment had been read out by the bailiffs . The reasoned judgment had never been read out publicly and had been sent to the applicants by post on DATE . The ORG account was disputed by the ORG , who submitted that the entire text of the judgment had been read out publicly at the end of the hearing .

The CARDINAL applicants are PERSON ( the first applicant ) , PERSON PERSON ( the second applicant ) , PERSON ( the third applicant ) and PERSON PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) .

The applicants are gay human rights activists .

On DATE the applicants notified ORG of their intention to hold a ORG march and a subsequent meeting on DATE , the anniversary of the start of the gay rights movement in GPE ( “ the GPE ” ) on DATE . The march and the meeting were scheduled to take place in the centre of GPE , with CARDINAL 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 that exists against homosexuals and to homophobia , fascism and xenophobia ” .

On DATE ORG refused to allow 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 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 ORG building . In accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW it was prohibited to hold public events in the vicinity of court buildings . ORG proposed 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 DATE the applicants proposed CARDINAL alternative venues for the march and subsequent meeting . They also informed ORG of their readiness to abandon the march and simply hold a meeting , and proposed a location for the meeting .

On DATE ORG again refused to agree to the meeting and the march . It found that the venues chosen by the applicants were not suitable for the following reasons : CARDINAL of the locations was not large enough to accommodate CARDINAL people , and 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 DATE to attend the celebrations of the CARDINALth anniversary of the town of GPE . Moreover , the march might hinder ORG access to their homes or shops . Lastly , on DATE would be being celebrated by students on the nearby campus . The third location proposed by the applicants was not suitable either , because celebrations to mark the end of DATE would be held there too . ORG proposed that the applicants change the venue of the march and meeting .

The first applicant was informed about that decision on TIME of CARDINAL DATE and received a copy of it on TIME DATE .

On DATE the applicants proposed CARDINAL new alternative venues to ORG , for either a march and a meeting or a meeting only .

On DATE ORG 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 LAW . That section provided that a reply to the authorities’ proposal to change the location of the event should be submitted DATE before the intended event . Having missed that deadline , the applicants were not entitled to hold the meeting and the march on DATE .

Despairing of obtaining official approval for a march and a meeting , on DATE the applicants notified ORG , Moskovskiy and ORG of GPE of their intention to hold a “ picket ” with the same aims on DATE . In GPE a location was chosen to accommodate CARDINAL participants .

On DATE 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 . ORG 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 . ORG did not allow the “ picket ” because a film was scheduled to be shot in that district DATE , including at the location selected by the applicants . Lastly , on DATE ORG also refused to agree to the “ picket ” because another ( unspecified ) event had already been approved at the same location and time as the applicants’ event . ORG proposed that the applicants change the location or time of their “ picket ” .

On DATE ORG , the youth wing of the progovernment party GPE , 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 ORG march , had been rejected as unsuitable by ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the first applicant challenged ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE before ORG of GPE . She complained that ORG had refused , for various reasons , to approve any of the venues proposed 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 all construction work and other events planned in the city . That being so , the authorities themselves should have proposed a venue where the march and the meeting could take place . They had not , however , made any such proposal , 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 DATE .

On DATE the first applicant submitted additional arguments in writing . She complained that ORG decision of DATE had been unlawful and had also not been well reasoned . She argued , firstly , that the applicants’ reply to ORG proposal to change the venue had been submitted within the DATE timelimit established by LAW . To be precise , it had been lodged on DATE , DATE before the intended march , which was scheduled for DATE . Secondly , the applicants could not have replied earlier because they had not received ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , requiring them to change the venue , until DATE . The first applicant further submitted that the reasons advanced by ORG in its decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE had not been sufficient . ORG 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 DATE . However , under section CARDINAL of LAW it was the authorities’ responsibility to take steps to ensure that public order was respected and that public events could proceed smoothly , including by regulating or blocking traffic . She also referred to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) , 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 a public event .

DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the first applicant ’s complaints . It found that ORG had provided reasons for its decisions of CARDINAL and DATE refusing to agree to the meeting and the march . Domestic law did not impose an obligation on an authority refusing to approve a location or time for a public event to propose an alternative location or time . As to the decision of DATE , the court found that it had also been lawful as the first applicant had missed the deadline for replying to the proposal to change the venue . She had not proved that she had been notified belatedly of the decision of DATE ; the list of her incoming calls showing that she had indeed received a call from ORG late in the TIME of DATE could not serve as proof of the belated notification . Lastly , given that ORG had not banned the meeting and march planned by the first applicant , but had merely required her to change the venue , her freedom of assembly had not been breached .

On DATE GPE upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

On different dates in DATE , DATE and DATE the first applicant challenged the refusals of the authorities of the Petrogradskiy , ORG , Moskovskiy and ORG of GPE to allow the “ pickets ” , arguing that the refusals had not been substantiated by weighty reasons and that the district authorities had not proposed alternative venues for the “ pickets ” . She also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation .

On DATE ORG of GPE held that the decision of DATE of ORG had been unlawful . It found that the other event to which ORG had referred in its decision was due to finish before the applicant ’s “ picket ” was due to begin . The authorities’ refusal had not therefore been well reasoned . Further , relying on ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found that , when refusing to approve a venue chosen by the organisers , the district administration had an obligation to propose an alternative venue . No other venue had been proposed , however .

On DATE the Petrogradskiy District Court of GPE held that ORG decision of DATE had been unlawful . It found that the reasons advanced by the district authorities for their refusal to allow the “ picket ” at the location and time chosen by the applicants had been valid . In particular , it had been established that on DATE the location in question was the meeting point for the departure of children to sports camps . An assembly 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 valid reason for the refusal to allow the event , 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 authorities had not proposed an alternative location or time for the “ picket ” , which it was obliged to do pursuant to ORG decision of DATE . The failure to propose an alternative location or time had deprived the first applicant of any opportunity to have the event approved . Lastly , ORG noted that it was no longer possible to remedy the violation of the first applicant ’s rights because the planned date had DATE . On DATE GPE upheld that judgment on appeal .

On DATE the Moskovskiy District Court of GPE held that the decision of ORG of DATE had also been unlawful . Although the district authorities’ refusal to approve the location and time of the “ picket ” chosen by the applicants had been well reasoned , the district authorities had not fulfilled their obligation to propose an alternative location or time for the event . The court ordered ORG to propose a suitable alternative location and time for the “ picket ” . On DATE GPE upheld that judgment on appeal .

On DATE ORG of GPE held that the decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG had also been unlawful . It found that the district authorities should have found out precisely at which locations the film shooting was scheduled to take place . Depending on that information , they should either have agreed to the “ picket ” being held at the location chosen by the applicants or have proposed an alternative location .

On DATE the second , third and fourth applicants and PERSON notified ORG of their intention to hold a ORG march and a meeting on DATE , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the meeting and the march was “ to draw the attention of society and the authorities to the violations of the rights of gays , lesbians , bisexual and transgender people and to the need to introduce a statutory prohibition on discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity ” .

DATE . On DATE ORG refused to agree to the march and the meeting . They found that the events would hinder the passage of pedestrians and vehicles and might also distract drivers , causing road accidents . Moreover , a guided tour of the district for children was planned on DATE and the ORG meeting would disrupt it . The district authorities proposed another location for the meeting and the march , and informed the applicants that the area would be closed to traffic for their convenience .

On DATE the applicants replied that the venue proposed by the district administration was unsuitable , because it was located in an industrial area among factories and warehouses and was difficult to reach . They proposed an alternative venue for the CARDINAL events , which they said was separated from the road by a QUANTITY - wide row of trees , which ruled out any risk of road accidents or hindrance to traffic . They would not be in the way of passers - by either , because there was a parallel pedestrian path which would remain free for passage . Lastly , the participants would cross the road at traffic lights , using a pedestrian crossing , which would make it unnecessary to close the area to traffic .

On DATE ORG again refused to approve the venue chosen by the applicants , pointing out that work to install a temporary amusement park would be going on there . They also reiterated their arguments concerning the obstruction of traffic and the risk of road accidents . The district administration insisted that the applicants should organise the march and the meeting at the location proposed in the letter of DATE .

On DATE the applicants agreed to hold the meeting and the march at the location proposed by the district authorities .

On DATE ORG refused to allow the march and the meeting at that location . The reason given was that the nearby power station was expecting a delivery of spare parts for boilers on DATE . The authorities proposed that the applicants choose another location for the march and the meeting .

On DATE the third and fourth applicants challenged ORG decisions of CARDINAL , DATE before ORG of GPE . They submitted that the reasons given by the district authorities for refusing to allow the meeting and the march were not convincing . They also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation .

On DATE ORG allowed the ORG complaints , finding that ORG decisions had not been well reasoned . It was the authorities’ and the ORG joint responsibility to ensure public order and the safety of participants and passers - by during the meeting and march . In their letter of DATE the applicants had set out the measures they intended to take to avoid accidents and disruption to traffic . The district authorities had disregarded those arguments and insisted that the march should take place at a location of their choosing . However , before proposing that location the district authorities had not checked whether the location was suitable and available . As a result , when the applicants agreed to the location , the district authorities had refused to approve it , on the ground that it was unavailable . That refusal had been unlawful . The court ordered that the district administration give the meeting and the march planned by the applicants their approval .

On DATE GPE examined the case on appeal . It quashed the decision ordering ORG to allow the meeting and the march , as the date scheduled for the events had passed DATE before . It was therefore no longer possible to remedy the violation of the applicant ’s rights . The court upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

On DATE the second , third and fourth applicants and PERSON notified ORG of their intention to organise a ORG march and a subsequent meeting on DATE in the centre of GPE , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the meeting and march was the same as that of the events in LOC .

On DATE ORG refused to allow the meeting and the march , noting that along the route chosen by the applicants the pavement was narrow and the traffic heavy . The applicants’ march might therefore obstruct traffic and pedestrians and distract drivers , causing accidents . The proposed meeting venue was not suitable either , because a rehearsal for DATE festivities would be taking place there on DATE . There was also a children ’s playground nearby . ORG proposed that the applicants should hold the march and the meeting in the village of ORG , in the suburbs of GPE .

On DATE the applicants replied that the location proposed by ORG was unsuitable because it was located in a remote and sparsely populated village surrounded by a forest , QUANTITY from the city centre . They proposed CARDINAL alternative locations for the march and the meeting or for the meeting only and agreed to reduce the number of participants to CARDINAL people .

On DATE ORG again refused to approve the meeting and the march . A ORG motorbike parade was scheduled to take place at CARDINAL of the proposed locations ; the second location would be occupied by anti - drug campaigners ; and the third location was not suitable because of landscaping work in progress there . ORG insisted that the applicants should hold the march in the village of ORG or propose another venue for approval .

On DATE the third and fourth applicants challenged ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE before the Smolnenskiy ORG of GPE . They complained that the refusals to allow the meeting and the march had not been substantiated by sufficient reasons . In particular , the police could have taken measures to control the traffic and thereby prevent road accidents . As to the Youth Day rehearsals , the motorbike parade and the anti - drug campaign , ORG could have proposed another time for the meeting and the march which would not have clashed with those events . The landscaping work had not been scheduled to last DATE , so it would have been possible to organise the meeting after it was finished . The applicants further argued that any assembly in a public place inevitably caused a certain level of disruption to ordinary life . The public authorities and the population had to show a degree of tolerance towards peaceful assemblies in crowded places , because otherwise it would be impossible to hold an assembly at a time and location where it would draw public attention to social or political issues . Lastly , they submitted that the venue proposed by ORG was unsuitable because it was located in a sparsely populated area in the middle of a forest . It was therefore not the right venue to draw the attention of society and the authorities to the violation of homosexuals’ rights , because there would be no representatives of the authorities or the general public present . The applicants also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation .

On DATE the Smolnenskiy ORG rejected the ORG complaints . The court held that domestic law did not impose any obligation on the authorities to submit evidence in support of their finding that the location chosen by the organisers was unsuitable . The reasons advanced by the authorities for refusing to approve a location were subjective and therefore not amenable to judicial review . It was significant that ORG had not banned the march and the meeting planned by the applicants . The proposal for a change of location had not breached the applicants’ rights . The applicants’ argument that the venue proposed by ORG was not suitable was unfounded .

On DATE GPE upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

On DATE the applicants participated in a ORG march in the centre of GPE . They were arrested and charged with the administrative offence of breaching the established procedure for the conduct of public events .

The CARDINAL applicants are Mr PERSON ( the first applicant ) , Mr GPE ( the second applicant ) , Mr LANGUAGE ( the third applicant ) , PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) , and Mr PERSON ( the fifth applicant ) .

On DATE the first applicant , together with Mr O. , notified ORG of their intention to hold a “ picket ” on CARDINAL DATE from TIME on the pavement in front of the Kaliningrad ORG headquarters . CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the event was to “ support [ President ] PERSON ’s national policy directed at fighting corruption , reforming the [ police ] system , detecting ‘ werewolves in epaulettes’ ( “ оборотни в погонах ” ) and eradicating crime ” . The other applicants intended to join in the “ picket ” .

On DATE ORG refused to agree to the “ picket ” . They referred to the risk of terrorist acts during the Victory Day celebrations on DATE immediately preceding them , and proposed that the “ picket ” be held on DATE after CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the first applicant and Mr O. agreed to postpone the event . They notified the authorities that it would be held on DATE at the same location .

On DATE ORG again refused to allow the “ picket ” . They pointed out that in recent times terrorist acts in the vicinity of police buildings , as well as other unlawful acts against police officers and members of ORG , had become more frequent in GPE . Attempted terrorist acts had been committed by both professional terrorists and mentally unstable people . A “ picket ” in front of GPE of the ORG headquarters might therefore be dangerous to the police and the participants . They proposed CARDINAL alternative locations for the event .

On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant and Mr O. replied that they considered the reasons given by the authorities for the change of venue unconvincing . No terrorist acts had ever been committed in LOC . It was the responsibility of the police to prevent terrorist acts . They therefore insisted that the “ picket ” should take place in front of ORG of the ORG headquarters , but agreed to hold it across the road from the headquarters . They requested that the police take increased security measures to ensure the safety of the participants .

On DATE the ORG refused yet again to allow the “ picket ” . They noted that there was heavy traffic at the proposed location and maintained that the “ picket ” would block the passage of pedestrians . Moreover , given the risk of terrorist acts in the vicinity of buildings occupied by law - enforcement authorities , it would be impossible to ensure the safety of the event . They insisted that the “ picket ” should be held at one of the locations proposed by the authorities in their letter of DATE .

According to the Government , on DATE the first applicant was informed by telephone that he could come to the ORG headquarters to collect the ORG ’s decision . According to the applicants , the first applicant received the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE in the afternoon . He therefore had no time to inform the participants that the event had not been given official approval .

Shortly before the beginning of the “ picket ” , which was scheduled to start at TIME on DATE , the first applicant was summoned to appear at the FAC Town Administration offices at TIME At the same time he was warned that if he went anywhere near FAC headquarters he would immediately be arrested . The first applicant went to the ORG offices at the appointed time to discuss the organisation of the “ picket ” .

Meanwhile , at TIME the third , fourth and fifth applicants went to ORG headquarters as planned , where they were immediately arrested and taken to the LOC police station , where they were held until TIME .

The first applicant was later charged with organising an unlawful public event , an offence under LAW . The third , fourth and fifth applicants were charged with disobeying a lawful order of the police to stop an unauthorised “ picket ” , and with breaching the established procedure for conducting public events , offences under LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL respectively of LAW .

By judgments of CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE a Justice of ORG of GPE discontinued the administrative proceedings against the applicants for lack of evidence of an offence . The Justice of the Peace found that the “ picket ” had not in fact taken place . There had been no mass gathering of people , waving of placards , public speeches or voicing of demands on issues related to political , economic , social or cultural life in the country or issues related to foreign policy . Although several people , unaware of the fact that the “ picket ” had not been approved , had indeed approached the ORG headquarters , they had been immediately arrested by the police . The applicants had not therefore organised or participated in an unauthorised public event and had not committed an offence under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . Accordingly , the order of the police to stop an unauthorised picket and to leave the vicinity of ORG headquarters had been unlawful and had breached the applicants’ freedom of movement . The applicants could not therefore be considered as having disobeyed a lawful order of the police and were not guilty of an offence under LAW .

On DATE the applicants challenged the ORG refusals to allow the “ picket ” before ORG of GPE .

On DATE ORG held that ORG refusals to agree to the “ picket ” had been lawful . The administration had found that the applicants’ “ picket ” might block the passage of vehicles and pedestrians and cause road accidents . It was also established that ORG had warned the local authorities about the risk of terrorist acts and recommended that public events should not be authorised , especially at times when the police were busy ensuring public order at festive celebrations . The town administration had no legal obligation to verify that information .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well - reasoned and justified .

The CARDINAL applicants are Mr GPE ( the first applicant ) , PERSON PERSON ( the second applicant ) , PERSON ( the third applicant ) , and Mr PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) .

On DATE the second and third applicants notified ORG of their intention to hold a meeting on DATE at FAC in the centre of GPE , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the meeting was to protest against a police state and demand the resignation of Prime Minister PERSON .

On DATE the ORG refused to allow the meeting , explaining that on DATE FAC was to be cleaned after DATE . They proposed that the meeting be held in a park in a residential district .

On DATE the third applicant replied that the location proposed by the administration was unsuitable because it was too far from the town centre and lacked visibility . She suggested CARDINAL alternative venues in the town centre for the meeting .

On DATE ORG replied that spring cleaning and refurbishment work was scheduled at both of the locations suggested by the third applicant , and insisted that the meeting should be held in the park proposed by the authorities in their letter of DATE .

On DATE the third applicant reiterated that the location proposed by the administration was unsuitable . She then proposed holding a “ picket ” instead of a meeting and reducing the number of participants to CARDINAL . She suggested CARDINAL possible locations for the “ picket ” : FAC and another location in the town centre .

On DATE the ORG refused to agree to the “ picket ” , reiterating that FAC was being cleaned and explaining that landscaping work was being carried out at the other location suggested by the third applicant . They again insisted that the “ picket ” should be held in the park mentioned in their letter of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the third applicant reiterated her argument that the park was unsuitable and proposed yet another location for the “ picket ” . That proposal was not examined by ORG until DATE , when they again insisted that the “ picket ” should be held in the park they had proposed .

On DATE the applicants went to FAC and saw that no cleaning or other work was in progress there . They therefore decided to organise a “ gathering ” ( “ собрание ” ) of CARDINAL people to protest against what they described as a police state . The gathering lasted for TIME . According to the Government , the police issued a warning that the gathering was unlawful and required the participants to disperse . According to the applicants , no warning was given to the participants . The gathering was eventually dispersed by force .

On DATE the applicants were charged with breach of the established procedure for conducting public events , an offence under LAW .

By judgments of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the Justice of ORG of GPE found the applicants guilty as charged . She found that they had taken part in a gathering which had not received official approval from the authorities . Their argument that no approval was required for gatherings had no basis in domestic law . LAW provided that all events , except “ gatherings ” and “ pickets ” involving CARDINAL participant , required prior approval by the authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As the gathering of CARDINAL DATE had involved CARDINAL participant , the authorities’ approval had been required . However , ORG had refused to approve a meeting or a “ picket ” planned by the applicants , and no notification of a gathering had been submitted by them . The gathering of DATE had therefore been unlawful . The Justice of the Peace ordered the first , second and fourth applicants to pay a fine of MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ( ORG ) ) each , and the third applicant to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . The Justice of the Peace also warned the applicants that if they failed to pay the fines within DATE they might be charged with non - payment of an administrative fine , an offence under LAW , punishable with either a doubling of the fine or CARDINAL days’ administrative arrest .

The applicants appealed . They submitted that the Justice of the Peace had incorrectly interpreted section CARDINAL of LAW . It was impossible to hold “ a gathering involving CARDINAL person ” , as LAW defined a “ gathering ” as “ an assembly of citizens ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was therefore logical that the phrase “ involving CARDINAL person ” referred to “ pickets ” only and did not concern “ gatherings ” . They were therefore not required to notify the authorities about the gathering .

By judgments of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE ORG of FAC upheld the judgments of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE on appeal , finding that they had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

On DATE ORG of FAC found that ORG refusals to agree to the meeting and the “ picket ” had been lawful and well reasoned . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

The CARDINAL applicants are Mr PERSON ( the first applicant ) , PERSON GPE ( the second applicant ) , Mr Batyy ( the third applicant ) and PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) .

NORP The applicants are supporters of the “ Strategy-CARDINAL ” movement . “ Strategy-CARDINAL ” is a series of civic protests in support of the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by LAW . The protests are held on DATE with DATE , in GPE and CARDINAL other NORP cities , such as GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

“ Strategy-CARDINAL ” was initiated by Mr PERSON , founder of ORG and CARDINAL of the leaders of The Other GPE , a coalition of opposition movements . It was subsequently supported by many prominent NORP human rights organisations , including ORG , ORG , and other public and political movements and associations .

The applicants are the leaders of the PERSON - on - Don section of the movement .

On DATE the first and third applicants notified the Rostovon - Don Town Administration of their intention to organise a “ picket ” from TIME on DATE ( Russia Day , a national holiday ) in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument in front of the PERSON - on - ORG headquarters . CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the event was to protest against the ineffective economic policies of the Prime Minister , PERSON , and the resulting increase in unemployment , as well as against violations of press freedom , persecution of political prisoners , lack of independence of the judiciary , and lack of free elections and political pluralism . They intended to collect signatures in support of a petition calling on PERSON to resign .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to agree to the “ picket ” on the grounds that festivities would be taking place at the location chosen by the applicants . It further reasoned :

“ Your picket and your slogan ‘ GPE against GPE might trigger a hostile reaction from the many supporters of CARDINAL of the leaders of ORG and fuel unrest that might jeopardise the safety and health of the participants in the picket . ”

NORP The town administration further noted that there were reasons to believe that some of the participants in the meeting might commit breaches of public order , as had already happened at meetings held by other organisers . They therefore proposed that the applicants hold their “ picket ” near FAC .

On DATE the first and third applicants agreed to hold the event near FAC . According to the applicants , they had accepted the authorities’ proposal because a rock concert had been scheduled near FAC at the same time , which would attract large numbers of people and thereby make their protest visible .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to agree to the “ picket ” , noting that a rock concert was scheduled to take place in LOC . The area round LOC would therefore be occupied by the spectators and their cars . The authorities therefore proposed that the applicants hold their event from CARDINAL to CARDINAL p.m. According to the applicants , they were informed of that decision on DATE .

The applicants decided to cancel the “ picket ” because at that time the area near FAC would be deserted and few people could reasonably be expected to see it . Moreover , given that DATE remained before the planned event , the applicants had insufficient time to inform the participants and the mass media about the change of time .

The third applicant held a solo “ picket ” instead . TIME after the start of the solo “ picket ” he was arrested and taken to a police station .

On DATE the first and third applicants challenged the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration ’s decisions of CARDINAL and DATE before ORG of PERSON - on - Don .

On DATE the ORG of RostovonDon rejected their complaints , finding that the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration ’s decisions had been lawful . By not replying to the authorities’ proposal of CARDINAL DATE the applicants had failed to fulfil their obligation to cooperate with the town administration . Moreover , the applicants had not proved that their rights had been breached by the ORG ’s decisions . On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld that judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

NORP The applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings in the centre of PERSON - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to allow the meetings , giving the following reasons . The meeting of CARDINAL DATE was not possible , because another event was planned at the same venue and time , and all other central locations were also occupied . As to the meeting of DATE , the town administration referred to heavy pedestrian traffic round the PERSON monument and the inconvenience the meeting would cause to the citizens . The meetings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE were not agreed to because “ pickets ” organised by ORG , the youth wing of the pro - government party GPE , were scheduled to take place near the PERSON monument on DATE . The meeting of DATE was not approved because a gathering of members of ORG of GPE was planned at the same location and time .

On DATE the first and second applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from TIME on CARDINAL October DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to allow the meeting . They noted that another event was scheduled to take place at the same location and time . It therefore proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near FAC .

On DATE the first applicant replied that the venue proposed by ORG was unsuitable because it was located in a deserted area far from the town centre . He notified the town administration that they would like to take part in the other event near the PERSON monument , and asked for information about its aims and the names of the organisers .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration replied that it was not possible to hold CARDINAL public events at the same location , because the ORG meeting might disrupt the other event . They warned the applicants that if they held a meeting near the PERSON monument they might be charged with organising an unlawful public event .

At TIME on DATE the applicants and other persons went to the PERSON monument , where a public event organised by ORG , the youth wing of the pro - government party GPE , was in progress . By CARDINAL ORG event was over .

According to the Government , the police issued a warning to those people who remained near the PERSON monument that their continuing meeting was unlawful and required the participants to disperse . The meeting was then dispersed by force by the police .

At CARDINAL the second and third applicants were arrested near the PERSON monument and taken to the LOC police station ; they arrived there at TIME At the police station administrative arrest reports and administrative offence reports were drawn up . The administrative offence reports mentioned that the second and third applicants were charged with disobeying a lawful order of the police , an offence under LAW . The second applicant was also charged with breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events , an offence under LAW . Afterwards the applicants were placed in a police cell , where they remained until TIME DATE .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALth ORG of the Pervomayskiy District of GPE - on - Don found , by CARDINAL separate judgments , the second applicant guilty of offences under LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . He found that the second applicant had taken part in an unauthorised public event and had refused to obey an order by the police to follow them to a police station . He ordered the second applicant to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG upheld the judgments of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALnd ORG of GPE of GPE - on - PERSON also found the third applicant guilty of an offence under LAW , in that he had attempted to prevent the police from arresting the organisers of the unlawful public event , in particular by grabbing the police officers by their uniforms and screaming . The third applicant was ordered to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . The third applicant appealed . He complained , in particular , that his arrest and detention had been unlawful . On DATE ORG of Rostov - on - Don upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . It found , in particular , that the third applicant ’s arrest and detention had been lawful under LAW of LAW .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG of RostovonDon found that the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration ’s refusals to approve the meeting planned by the applicants had been unlawful . CARDINAL people had been expected to attend the ORG event , while the applicant ’s meeting had been attended by CARDINAL people . There was sufficient space to accommodate both events near the PERSON monument . Moreover , the events overlapped in time TIME , from TIME The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration ’s argument that it was not possible to hold the CARDINAL events at the same location was therefore unconvincing . Moreover , the location near FAC proposed by ORG was indeed isolated and would not therefore permit the applicants’ meeting to attain its purposes . ORG ordered ORG to approve a meeting near the PERSON monument on a date to be chosen by the applicants .

On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . It however overturned the order to approve a meeting on a date to be chosen by the applicants , finding that such an order was contrary to the principle of separation of powers between the judicial and the executive . ORG had thus unduly interfered with the executive ’s discretion to approve public events provided by law .

On DATE the first applicant notified ORG of his intention to organise a “ picket ” on the theme “ GPE against GPE , from TIME on DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend .

On DATE the Rostov - on - Don Town Administration refused to agree to the “ picket ” , on the following grounds :

“ The theme of the public event you plan to hold , “ GPE against GPE , aspires to create ... a negative image of a ORG official of GPE you allege is unpopular in GPE .

This allegation is false and misleading for the population , as it contradicts the results of many all - GPE opinion polls according to which PERSON inspires confidence in at least a majority of the polled citizens of the country .

A picket with such a title would therefore amount to an action the sole purpose of which is to harm another person , which is contrary to LAW of the GPE ” .

NORP The town administration further added that the New Year tree had been put in place and the New Year fair was scheduled to take place at the location chosen by the applicant . The “ picket ” might thus interfere with the New Year celebrations and inconvenience the merchants .

On DATE the first applicant agreed to change the theme of the event , notified the administration that it would be called “ Strategy CARDINAL ” and asked them to give it their approval .

On DATE the GPE - on - Don Town Administration refused to allow the “ picket ” . They found that by modifying the title the organisers had changed the purpose of the event , so a new notification should have been submitted . They also reiterated that no public events were possible near the PERSON monument until DATE because of the New Year tree installed there and the New Year celebrations scheduled to take place nearby .

NORP On DATE the first applicant challenged the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE before ORG of GPE - on - Don .

NORP On DATE the ORG of ORG found that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful and had not violated the applicant ’s rights . The sole purpose of a public event entitled “ GPE against GPE was to harm another person . By contrast , the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been unlawful . The requirement to submit a new notification had no basis in domestic law . Moreover , no celebrations were scheduled to take place near the PERSON monument from TIME to CARDINAL p. QUANTITY on DATE . The finding that the “ picket ” might hinder the New Year celebrations had therefore been unsubstantiated . No other valid reasons for the refusal to allow the “ picket ” had been given .

At TIME that same day the first applicant and some other people gathered near the PERSON monument . They were surrounded by many policemen , whose number considerably exceeded their own .

At TIME the police gave the first applicant a written warning which , referring to the decision of DATE by the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration , stated that the “ picket ” was unlawful and that the organisers might be therefore held liable for extremist activities . The first applicant showed the police the court judgment of DATE by which the decision of DATE had been overturned . The police replied that the judgment was not yet final and warned the participants that they would be arrested if they started to chant slogans or wave banners . The protesters were forced to end the “ picket ” .

On DATE the first applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE . He argued that the town administration ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE had violated his freedom of expression by prohibiting him from criticising Prime Minister PERSON . The town administration also appealed , arguing that its decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful , as the “ picket ” could have caused the New Year tree to be knocked over and created a fire hazard .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

On DATE the second and fourth applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to organise a meeting from TIME QUANTITY on DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend .

On DATE the Rostov - on - ORG refused to allow the meeting , because pedestrian traffic in the area was dense in TIME and the applicants’ meeting might cause inconvenient disruptions . They proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near FAC .

On DATE the second and fourth applicants replied that the proposed venue was unsuitable because it was located in a deserted place far from the town centre . They asked the authorities how many participants they could bring together without obstructing pedestrian traffic near the PERSON monument .

On DATE the Rostov - on - ORG declined to engage in dialogue on the question of freedom of assembly .

The first , second and fourth applicants challenged ORG decision of DATE before LOC of GPE - on - Don .

On DATE the ORG of Rostov - on - Don rejected their complaint , finding that the decision of DATE had been lawful .

On DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination before ORG .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration argued that the area around the PERSON monument was one of the most crowded places in the town . In the rush hour CARDINAL to CARDINAL people per minute passed by the PERSON monument . Some of them might be distracted by the ORG meeting , thereby hindering the passage of other pedestrians . Moreover , the applicants had distributed leaflets calling on the town ’s population to take part in the meeting . The possibility could not be ruled out , therefore , that CARDINAL people would attend the meeting . That might have created a danger for public safety . By contrast , the venue near FAC was larger and could therefore accommodate more participants without disrupting pedestrian traffic or jeopardising public safety .

On DATE ORG allowed the second and fourth ORG complaints , finding that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been unlawful . The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration had not provided valid reasons for its proposal that the meeting venue should be changed . Moreover , they had failed to refute the applicants’ argument that the proposed location near FAC would not serve the purposes of the meeting . The court ordered the PERSON - Don Town Administration to allow a meeting of CARDINAL people near the PERSON monument from TIME on DATE with DATE following the entry into force of the judgment . The court rejected the first applicant ’s complaints , however , finding that he had no standing to complain to a court because he had not signed the notification of DATE . His intention to participate in the meeting was irrelevant . It also rejected the ORG complaints about discrimination on the basis of political opinion . The fact that other meetings had been allowed at the same location was not sufficient to prove discrimination against the applicants .

On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

NORP On DATE the applicants received a writ of execution .

NORP On DATE the applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from TIME on DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , to be attended by CARDINAL people . They enclosed the writ of execution .

On DATE the GPE - on - Don Town Administration approved the meeting .

On DATE ORG of GPE , referring to the threat of terrorist or extremist acts , ordered the police to enclose the location near the PERSON monument with metal barriers , with CARDINAL entry checkpoints . It further ordered that the participants in the meeting be searched with the aid of metal detectors .

On DATE the police gave a written warning to the fourth applicant . It stated , in particular , that the meeting venue would be closed off with barriers . All participants would be searched at the entry checkpoints . If a person refused to be searched , he or she would not be allowed to enter the enclosed area . As the approved number of participants was QUANTITY people , CARDINAL people would be allowed to enter . If CARDINAL people tried to attend the meeting , the police would not let them in .

According to the applicants , the location near the PERSON monument was often used for meetings and other public events , but it was never fenced off on such occasions , and the entry of participants or passers - by was never restricted .

When the participants arrived at the PERSON monument at TIME they saw that the location had been fenced off with metal barriers . It is visible on the photographs of the event submitted by the applicants that police buses were parked along the barriers so that passers - by could not see what was going on in the enclosed area . Moreover , all passers - by were diverted by the police to another road . QUANTITY police officers were present . Although the enclosed area measured QUANTITY . m , CARDINAL people were allowed to enter and attend the meeting , after being searched at an entry checkpoint . According to the applicants , many would - be participants were not let in .

The first , third and fourth applicants complained to ORG , claiming that the police had acted unlawfully and violated their freedom of assembly . In particular , the police were not entitled to limit the number of participants at the meeting . The venue near the PERSON monument could easily accommodate CARDINAL people and the town administration had itself previously organised public events there with CARDINAL participants . There was therefore no justification for limiting the number of participants to CARDINAL people . Fencing the area off with metal barriers , blocking it with police buses , diverting the passers - by to other roads , searching the participants and not letting some of them in , had all also been unlawful and unjustified . The security measures taken by the police had made the meeting invisible to the public and thereby deprived it of its purpose . The reference by the police to the risk of terrorist attacks was unsubstantiated . There was no evidence that such a risk was higher on DATE than on DATE . On DATE , for example , just DATE , an official public event had been held near the PERSON monument and the area had not been fenced off .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints . It found that the number of participants had been determined by the applicants themselves and had then been approved by a final judgment . The police had merely enforced that judgment , acting in accordance with the writ of execution . The enclosing of the venue had been justified by security considerations . The court also found that the first and third applicants had no standing to complain to a court , as they had not been parties to the judicial proceedings which had ended with the judgment of DATE and had not been mentioned in the writ of execution . The fact that in the notification of DATE they were listed as organisers of the meeting of CARDINAL DATE was irrelevant .

On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

At TIME on DATE the first , third and fourth applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from TIME on DATE near the PERSON monument in front of the PERSON - on - ORG building in the town centre . CARDINAL people were expected to attend . They specified that if that venue was already occupied they would agree to hold the meeting in front of the cinema QUANTITY from the PERSON monument . The aim of the meeting was to protest against the violations by the town administration of the freedom of assembly guaranteed by LAW , and against fraudulent practices in the elections to ORG .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to approve the meeting , stating that notification of another public event at the same location had already been submitted . The holding of CARDINAL meetings at the same location might create tension and conflict . The authorities proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near ORG .

On DATE the applicants replied that ORG was not a suitable venue , because it was too far away from ORG , which was the target of their protest meeting . Moreover , the area in front of ORG was occupied by a large flowerbed and could not accommodate such a large meeting . It appears that they did not receive any reply .

On DATE , DATE , the applicants challenged the town administration ’s decision of DATE before LOC of GPE - on - Don , repeating the arguments stated in their letter of CARDINAL DATE and adding that they had submitted their notification on DATE submissions were open , TIME after the opening of the town administration offices . It was impossible for anyone else to have submitted a notification before them . As to the possible tensions with the people attending the other meeting , the applicants noted that on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL meetings , each attended by CARDINAL people , had been held simultaneously near the PERSON monument without any trouble or incidents .

On DATE the ORG found that the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration ’s decision of DATE had been unlawful . Firstly , the authorities had not proved that it was impossible to hold the CARDINAL events simultaneously . A series of “ pickets ” organised by ORG , the youth wing of ORG , from TIME every day from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , had been allowed by the town administration . There was however no information as to whether the “ pickets ” had been held as announced , that is for TIME every day for DATE . In any event , according to the notification , ORG “ pickets ” involved CARDINAL participants , while CARDINAL people were to attend the applicants’ meeting . The venue near the PERSON monument had sufficient capacity to accommodate both events , especially taking into account that the applicants were willing to hold the event in front of the cinema , some distance from the PERSON monument . Secondly , the court found that the area outside ORG proposed by the town authorities , was not large enough to accommodate all the participants in the ORG meeting . A copy of that judgment was made available to the applicants on DATE .

NORP On DATE the applicants held a meeting near the PERSON monument , in spite of obstruction from the authorities and the police .

On DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and rejected the ORG complaint . It found that the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration ’s decision of DATE had been lawful and well reasoned . As another public event had been scheduled at the same time and place as that chosen by the applicants , the town administration had proposed using the area outside ORG . This was a busy location in the town centre . The applicants had not explained how the flowerbeds would prevent them from gathering there .

At TIME on DATE the first and fourth applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings from TIME on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and DATE , in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . They specified that the location near FAC and the dates were important to them , and stated that if that location was occupied they would agree to hold the meetings in front of the cinema QUANTITY from the PERSON monument . The aim of the meetings was to protest against violations by the town administration of the freedom of assembly guaranteed by LAW , and against fraudulent practices in the elections to ORG .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to approve the meetings . Regarding the meeting of CARDINAL DATE , they noted that notification of another public event at the same location had already been submitted . The holding of CARDINAL meetings at the same location might create tension and conflict . They therefore proposed that the applicants’ meeting be held near ORG . As to the remaining meetings , ORG found that the applicants had submitted the notifications too early , outside the time - limits established by the law .

On DATE the first and fourth applicants replied that the venue outside ORG was unsuitable because it was too far away from the town administration , which was the target of their protest meeting . It was also not large enough to accommodate a meeting of CARDINAL people . It appears that they did not receive any reply .

The applicants then challenged the town administration ’s refusal to approve the meeting of CARDINAL DATE before ORG of GPE - on - Don , repeating the arguments stated in their letter of CARDINAL DATE and adding that they had submitted their notification on DATE submissions were open , TIME after the opening of the town administration offices . It was impossible for anyone else to have submitted a notification before them . As to the possible tensions with the people attending the other meeting , the applicants noted that on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL meetings , each attended by CARDINAL people , had been held simultaneously near the PERSON monument without any trouble or incident . Finally , they complained that DATE and DATE they had submitted CARDINAL notifications , all of which had been rejected by the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration for various reasons .

NORP On DATE the ORG of RostovonDon rejected their complaints and found that the PERSON - on - Don authorities’ decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful and well reasoned . Another person had notified the authorities of his intention to conduct a public opinion poll on DATE at the same place and time . It was impossible to hold CARDINAL public events simultaneously at the same place as altercations might arise between the participants . The alternative venue proposed by the authorities was a busy square in the town centre . It was large enough to accommodate the meeting and would serve the required purpose .

On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding it lawful , well reasoned and justified .

Meanwhile , also before ORG , the applicants challenged the refusal to approve the meetings of DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE . They complained that they had been subjected to discrimination on account of their political views . The Mayor of GPE - on - Don was a member of ORG party . Events organised by that party or its youth wing had always been allowed to proceed . The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration had approved a series of “ pickets ” , to be held DATE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , for a total of TIME , despite the fact that the notification had been submitted by ORG outside the statutory time - limit . A similar notification submitted by the applicants concerning a series of “ pickets ” with a total duration of TIME , however , had been rejected by the town administration .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints as unsubstantiated . It found that the applicants’ notification was different from that submitted by ORG , which concerned a single public event that lasted DATE and was therefore allowed by law , while the applicants’ notification concerned a series of separate “ pickets ” , each of which required a separate notification to be submitted within the legal time - limit . The applicants had not observed that time - limit . There was therefore no evidence of discrimination on account of political opinion . It was also significant that the applicants were not members of any political party .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal , finding it lawful , well reasoned and justified .

In DATE and DATE the applicants notified the Rostovon - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings on DATE and DATE near the PERSON monument in the town centre . The authorities agreed to the meeting on DATE , but not to the CARDINAL on DATE , because a New Year tree had been installed near the PERSON monument .

At TIME on DATE the first applicant notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of his intention to hold a meeting from TIME on DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . He specified that the location and time were important to him , but if the location was already occupied he would agree to hold the meeting in front of the cinema , QUANTITY from the PERSON monument . The aim of the meeting was to protest against violations by ORG guaranteed by LAW , and against fraudulent practices in the elections to ORG .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to approve the meeting , because notification of a public event at the same location had already been submitted by someone else . The holding of CARDINAL public events at the same location might create tension and conflict . They therefore proposed that the ORG meeting be held near ORG .

On DATE the first applicant replied that the location near FAC was unsuitable and that it was important for him to hold the meeting in front of ORG . He also stated that he had been the first to enter the town administration building on TIME of the time - limit . No one could have submitted a notification before him .

Having received no reply , on DATE the first applicant challenged the PERSON - on - ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG , repeating the arguments set out in his letter of DATE . He also asked the court to examine the video recordings of the town administration building ’s entrance cameras , which would prove that he had been the first to enter the building and submit a notification .

On DATE a deputy head of the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration informed the first applicant that the entrance cameras had been switched off from TIME on DATE for technical reasons .

On DATE the ORG rejected the first applicant ’s complaints . It found that PERSON had submitted his notification before the first applicant had , at TIME As it was impossible to hold CARDINAL public events at the same location , the town administration had agreed to PERSON event and proposed an alternative venue to the first applicant . That venue was in a busy area of the town centre and therefore suited the purposes of the meeting . The decision of DATE had therefore been lawful and well reasoned .

On DATE the first applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that the town administration had not proved that PERSON had lodged his notification before him . His request for the entry camera recording had been refused . He asserted that he had been the first to enter the administrative building on TIME of DATE and to get an entry pass . He had not seen Mr B. at the reception . If PERSON , a member of the pro - government ORG party , had been allowed to enter without an entry pass , that in itself showed discrimination on account of political opinion . He further submitted that PERSON event , the purpose of which was to inform the population about various youth organisations in the region , was not a public event within the meaning of LAW and therefore did not require any notification or agreement . According to the applicant , it was possible for him to hold his meeting in front of the cinema at the same time as PERSON information event near the PERSON monument . Referring to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , he requested that his appeal be examined before the date of the intended meeting .

On DATE the first applicant went to the PERSON monument at TIME and remained there for TIME . The location remained empty . Neither Mr B. nor anyone else was there to hold the information event approved by the town administration .

On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Regional Court upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .

NORP The applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to give the meetings their approval , giving the following reasons . The meetings of DATE and DATE were not approved because public events organised by ORG were scheduled to take place near the PERSON monument on DATE . The notification of the meeting of CARDINAL DATE was not examined . The meeting of CARDINAL DATE was not approved because celebrations of the start of DATE were to take place near the PERSON monument .

On DATE ORG adopted at first reading a draft law which , in particular , prohibited adoption of children of NORP nationality by GPE citizens .

NORP On DATE the official DATE newspaper ORG announced that the second reading was scheduled for DATE .

According to the applicant , he read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo “ pickets ” on DATE in front of ORG to express their opposition to the draft law . The format of solo “ pickets ” was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory DATE notification period for other types of public events .

The applicant decided to hold his own solo “ picket ” , and at TIME positioned himself , holding a banner , in the vicinity of ORG at some distance from other protesters .

According to the applicant , he was arrested by the police TIME and brought in a police van to the nearby police station . At TIME the police drew up a report stating that the applicant had been escorted to the police station so that a report on an administrative offence could be drawn up . An arrest report , drawn up at the same time , stated that the applicant had arrived at the police station at TIME The applicant made a handwritten note on both reports that he was in fact arrested at TIME , when he was put into the police van .

At the police station the applicant was charged with participating in a public event held without prior notification , in breach of LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences . The report on the administrative offence indicates that the offence was committed at CARDINAL a.m. The applicant made a handwritten statement that he could not have committed an offence at that time because he had been in the police van since TIME

The applicant was released at TIME

On DATE the justice of the peace of CARDINAL Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of GPE convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . The justice of the peace found it established , on the basis of police reports , that the applicant had taken part in a “ picket ” involving CARDINAL people . That “ picket ” had been unlawful , because no notification had been submitted by the organisers , as required by NORP law . The applicant had waved a banner , thereby attracting the attention of passers - by and journalists assembled for the occasion . He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing .

In his appeal statement the applicant complained , in particular , that his arrest had been unlawful .

On DATE the ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .