BLATOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA
Doc ref: 81928/12;36095/13;39218/13;44329/13;1897/14;10372/14;17840/14 • ECHR ID: 001-223459
Document date: February 2, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 81928/12 Olga Dmitriyevna BLATOVA against Russia and 6 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 February 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Darian Pavli , President , Ioannis Ktistakis, Andreas Zünd , judges ,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 11 of the Convention concerning the restrictions on location, time or manner of conduct of public events were communicated to the Russian Government (“the Government”). In applications nos. 39218/13 and 1897/14, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention (see the appended table).
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The applicants complained about the restrictions imposed by the authorities on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events and the absence of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
The Court observes that the applicants challenged the decisions of local authorities disapproving the locations of their public events in the domestic courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. The applicants brought these proceedings after the planned dates of their public events. The Court has already found in Alekseyev v. Russia (nos. 4916/07 and 2 others, §§ 99 and 100, 21 October 2010) that the judicial remedy of a post-hoc character the applicants had recourse to was incapable of providing adequate redress in respect of the alleged violations of Article 11 of the Convention. The applicants therefore should have been aware of the ineffectiveness of the judicial review as a remedy in respect of their complaints so as to reasonably anticipate the application of the six-month requirement in their case (see, for similar approach, Alekseyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 14988/09 and 50 others, §§ 14-16, 27 November 2018). Accordingly, they should have lodged their complaints within six months of the date of the local administrations’ decisions banning their public events (see Komarova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 44570/11, § 18, 26 May 2020).
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month rule and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 2 March 2023.
Viktoriya Maradudina Darian Pavli Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 11 of the Convention
(restrictions on the location, time or manner of conduct of public events)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Location
Date of the public event planned
Restrictions applied
Decision by local authority
Name of local authority
Date
Final domestic decision (type of procedure)
Date
Name of the court
Other complaints under well-established case-law
81928/12
23/11/2012
Olga Dmitriyevna BLATOVA
1976Nugayeva Svetlana Yuryevna
Moscow
Near the Government building
Moscow
12/09/2011
Proposal to change the location
Deputy Prefect of the Central Administrative Circuit of Moscow
09/09/2011
Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure
25/05/2012
Moscow City Court
—
36095/13
20/05/2013
Aleksey Lvovich BOLGAROV
1960Konstantin Leonidovich YERSHOV
1963—
St. Isaac’s square
St. Petersburg
19/08/2012
07/10/2012
Proposal to change the locations and/or time of the events
St Petersburg Government
10/08/2012
28/09/2012
Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure
20/11/2012 (event of 19/08/2012)
22/01/2013 (event of 07/10/2012)
St Petersburg City Court
—
39218/13
30/04/2013
Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN
1969Savina Anna Andriyanovna
Novosibirsk
Krasnyy Prospekt
Novosibirsk
27/02/2012
28/02/2012
Proposal to change the location
Novosibirsk City Administration
17/02/2012 (received on 20/02/2012)
Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure
13/11/2012
Novosibirsk Regional Court
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - to complain about the violation of Article 11 rights
44329/13
20/02/2012
Yuliya Nikolayevna MAMAYEVA
1979—
Tyumen, several manifestations between 28/03/2011 and 03/04/2011
Refusals because other events were planned on the same dates at the desired venues
Tyumen City Administration
18/03/2011
22/03/2011
Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure
22/08/2011
Tyumen Regional Court
—
1897/14
22/11/2013
Sofya Andreyevna MIKHAYLOVA
1986—
Near Aeroflot Office
Moscow
25/10/2012
Refusal to approve the event
Department for Regional Security of Moscow
17/10/2012
Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure
28/05/2013
Moscow City Court
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in relation to Article 11 complaint
10372/14
23/12/2013
Siranush Khachaturovna MOSHIYAN
1963—
Lenin Monument
Rostov-on-Don
31/03/2013
Proposal to change the location
Rostov-on-Don City Administration
20/03/2013
Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure
24/06/2013
Rostov Regional Court
—
17840/14
01/08/2013
Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN
1969—
Novosibirsk, several manifestations between 16/01/2012 and 19/01/2012
Refusal because the applicant failed to comply with the time-limits for lodging notifications under the domestic law
Novosibirsk City Administration
30/12/2011 (received on
12/01/2012)
Judicial review under the Code of Civil Procedure 30/09/2013
Novosibirsk Regional Court
—