CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 novembre 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 } .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 } Communicated on 9 November 2020 Published on 30 November 2020   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20981/13 Maksym Petrovych CHEREMSKYY against Ukraine lodged on 13 March 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Maksym Petrovych Cheremskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Kharkiv. On 11 August 2012 the applicant sent a notice to the Kharkiv Branch of the Ministry of Interior informing it that from 12 August 2012 onwards, for an unlimited period of time, he was planning to hold a peaceful assembly “Ukraine for fair elections” which was supposed to gather 20   persons and would take place in the centre of Kharkiv, in T.G. Shevchenko park. The police transferred the notice to Kharkiv City Council, which received it on 13 August 2012. On 13 August 2012 Kharkiv City Council requested Kharkiv District Administrative Court to prohibit the assembly. The court allowed the request and prohibited the assembly on the same date. The court based the decision on the following arguments: a) the notice sent by the applicant did not give clear characteristics of the assembly; b) the notice was not sent in reasonable time (dated 11 August 2012 and received by Kharkiv City Council on 13 August 2012, while the assembly was planned for 12   August 2012); c)   the applicant planned to hold an assembly of an unlimited duration, d) the place of assembly chosen by the applicant was in the city centre “not far away” from places with significant road traffic; e)   the place of the assembly was a place where Kharkiv people liked to rest and carry out their leisure activities. The court further noted that “there was no evidence to prove that the assembly was not contrary to the interests of the inhabitants of Kharkiv”. Moreover, the assembly could put their health and life under threat, as well as their right to circulate safely in the city. The court also stated that “the materials in the case file do not contain proof of absence of a possibility of a violation of rights and freedoms of persons [not participating in the assembly] ...”. On 17 September 2012 the Kharkiv Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. The court noted that the time and place of the assembly coincided with the time and place of the Honey Fair and the Flower Exhibition, which were to take place from 14 to 23 August 2012 in T.G. Shevchenko park. Holding the assembly at the same time and place as these events could lead to a violation of public order and a threat to safety, because the applicant’s assembly could be spontaneously joined by an unknown number of people. If this happened, the number of participants in the applicant’s assembly would increase and the assembly would become unmanageable which would lead to obstruction of the circulation of citizens and vehicles. On 15 November 2012 the Higher Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for leave to appeal in cassation. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention that the decision to prohibit his assembly was not necessary in a democratic society. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?