CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDAD2B73A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Communicated on 6 July 2020 Published on 27 July 2020   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7715/15 Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN against Russia lodged on 12 January 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Viktor Borisovich Sorokin, is a Russian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Novosibirsk. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Public event of 5 March 2014 On 19 February 2014 the applicant notified the Mayor of Novosibirsk of his intention to hold a public event with the following aims: to promote respect for law, civic engagement and opposition to corruption. The event was scheduled to take place from 4 to 8 p. m. on 5 March 2014. The Mayor gave his official approval for holding the event. The event started on 5 March 2014 as planned but about half an hour after its beginning it was terminated by the police. At 8.30 p. m. the police carried out a crime-scene inspection. It follows from the crime-scene inspection report that a banner saying “6   April. L.” was displayed at the location where the public event was being held and that leaflets were available for picking up by passers-by. The leaflets in question reminded the reader that mayor’s elections were scheduled for 6 April 2014. They then stated that one of the candidates, Mr   L., invited Mr Z. – the acting Mayor and the ruling party’s candidate – to participate in a public debate and listed ten topics for that debate, such as fight against corruption, availability of places in pre-schools, availability of social housing, measures to reduce traffic jams after snowfalls, etc. In a document dated 6 March 2014 the Mayor’s office stated that the public event had been terminated because the participants had distributed the following material that did not correspond to its declared aims: a leaflet proposing to join a group against corruption; the applicant’s business card; and Mr L.’s leaflet inviting Mr Z. to participate in a public debate. The applicant complained to the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of Novosibirsk that the public event had been terminated unlawfully, in particular in breach of the procedure established by sections 15-17 of the Public Events Act. The decision to terminate the event had not been justified and had breached his freedom of assembly. On 19 June 2014 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court rejected his complaint. It found that the participants had distributed the applicant’s business cards and Mr L.’s leaflet which did not correspond to the declared aims of the public event. The representative of the Administration of the Dzerzhinskiy District had therefore decided to terminate the event. She had had competence to make that decision. On 28 August 2014 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal. He has not been informed about the decision taken. Meanwhile, on 1 August 2014 the Zayeltsevskiy District Court of Novosibirsk found the applicant guilty of an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to a fine of 10,000 Russian roubles (RUB, about 210 euros). It held that the applicant, the organiser of the public event of 5 March 2014, had not ensured compliance with all the elements of the public event as indicated in the notification. In particular, the banner displayed during the event and the leaflets distributed by its participants had amounted to electoral campaigning for Mr L. Electoral campaigning had not been among the event’s aims indicated in the notification of 19 February 2014. It had been however established that the applicant had had the advance intention to campaign for Mr   L. He had therefore held a public event with the aims that differed from the aims declared in the notification. On 16 September 2014 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well reasoned and justified. Pubic event of 29 August 2014 On 29 August 2014 the applicant held a public event against corruption. On 16 October 2014 the Tsentralnyy District Court of Novosibirsk found him guilty of an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 10,000. It held that the applicant did not have an armband indicating that he was the event’s organiser, in breach of the requirements of section 5 § 4(10) of the Public Events Act. On 11 November 2014 the Novosibirsk Regional Court upheld the conviction on appeal. It held, in particular, that it was necessary for the organiser of a public event to wear an armband so that he could be easily identified as such by the participants or law-enforcement authorities who might need to apply to him concerning issues relating to the conduct of the event. It however reduced the fine to RUB 500, taking into account that the applicant was raising three minor children and was having financial difficulties. The applicant subsequently lodged notifications for public events to be held in December 2014 and in July, August and October 2015. Each time he received a reply that, under section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Events Act, he could not organise a public event because he had been found guilty of an administrative offence related to public events on two occasions within a year in 2014. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention about the termination of the public event of 5 March 2014 and his conviction for an administrative offence in connection with that event. He further complains about his conviction for an administrative offence in connection with the public event of 29 August 2014. Given that it was his second conviction within a year, it resulted in an automatic prohibition on organising public events until the expungement of his administrative offence record.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the termination of the public event of 5 March 2014 and the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant for using a banner and distributing leaflets that did not correspond to its declared aims violate his right to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention?   2.     Did the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant in connection with the public event of 29 August 2014 for the failure to wear an armband mentioning that he was the event’s organiser violate his right to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly, contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference, taking into account that it resulted in an automatic prohibition for the applicant on organising public events until the expungement of his administrative offence record? Was that sanction (an automatic ban on organising public events) proportionate to a legitimate aim pursued? Did the domestic courts perform a careful balancing exercise between the need to punish a breach of the requirement of visibility by the organiser of a public event and the applicant’s right to freedoms of expression and assembly?