Communicated on 29 September 2016

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 31333/07 Marina Alekseyevna DUBROVINA and O thers against Russia lodged on 11 July 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Meeting of 23 January 2007

The applicants are human rights activists living and working in the Krasnodar Region. Since 2003 they have participated in the activities of “Frodo”, the charity and human rights organisation aimed at combatting intolerance and discrimination of ethnic minorities in the region. One of its key activities was a “Tolerant football” game with the participation of children belonging to different ethnic groups in Novorossiysk.

In 2006 the second applicant received an e-mail from Mr S.G., a former Russian citizen residing in Germany. He expressed his interest in the “Tolerant football” game and willingness to meet the second applicant to discuss it. Mr S.G. asked him to book rooms in the local hotel for him and his friend.

The meeting was scheduled on 23 January 2007 at 11 a.m. in the Art School; its director Mr V.S. had been the member of the “Frodo” organisation since its foundation. He proposed to use the school premises for meeting, as the “Frodo” organisation had no office. The participants of the meeting were six members of the “Frodo” organisation, including the applicants, Mr S.G. and Mr R.K. from Germany, the interpreter and three university students.

Around 1 p.m. a group of police officers and representatives of migration service entered the meeting room. They requested the participants of the meeting to present their identity documents, which had been done by the latter. Afterwards the police officers demanded explanations as regards the meeting, but the members of the “Frodo” organisation refused to give any as no charges were brought against them.

The police officers had remained in the meeting room until the officials of the Department of Culture and Department of Cooperation with Public Organisations and Monitoring of Migration of Novorossiysk arrived. The officials requested the participants to leave the room as no notification of a public event had been sent to the Department of Culture. The participants refused, having stated that the meeting was not public and thus, did not require any notification of the authorities. In a few minutes the director of the Art School informed the participants that a lesson was to start in the meeting room soon, and they left.

2. Administrative proceedings in respect of the first applicant

On 28 January 2007 the first applicant was summoned to the police office where a report on the administrative offence was drawn up in her respect. She was charged with participation in an unauthorized meeting under Article 20.2 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences (the CAO).

On 30 January 2007 the Justice of the Peace of the 81st judicial circuit of the Central District of Novorossiysk examined the administrative case. She held that the meeting in the Art School was a public event aimed at expressing opinions on various issues. Therefore, its organiser should have notified the regional authorities about it. The Justice of the Peace found the first applicant guilty of participation in an unauthorised public event under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced her to a fine of 500 Russian roubles (RUB).

On 12 March 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk examined the applicant ’ s appeal against the judgment and dismissed it.

3. Administrative proceedings in respect of the second and third applicant

The second and the third applicant were summoned to the police office on 1 February 2007 but they did not go. On that day in the afternoon their car was stopped by the transport police for the alleged breach of traffic rules. While the applicants ’ documents were verified, another group of police officers arrived at the spot. They requested the applicants to sign summons to the court on 1 February 2007. Having done so, the applicants proceeded to the court where they were summoned to the hearing on 2 February 2007 and served with the reports on the administrative offences under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO.

On 2 February 2007 the Justice of the Peace of the 81st judicial circuit of the Central District of Novorossiysk examined the administrative cases of the second and third applicants. She held that they both organised a public event, namely a meeting with ten participants, without notifying regional authorities. The Justice of the Peace found the applicants guilty under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced them to fines of RUB 2,000.

Both applicants appealed against the judgments, claiming that the meeting was private. Notification was required for public meetings aimed at developing opinions and voicing demands on issues related to political, economic, social or cultural life in the country, as well as issues related to foreign policy. At the same time, meeting other people to discuss sports questions and share experience, as in their case, did not require special authorisation. The applicants also claimed that they did not organise the meeting but merely participated in it.

On 20 February and 2 March 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk examined the applicants ’ appeals. It held that both applicants organised the meeting on 23 January 2007, which was a public event aimed at expressing and developing opinions on various issues. They failed to notify regional authorities of it and thereby breached the procedure for the organisation of a meeting, an offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO. The court found the applicants guilty under this provision and reduced the fines to RUB 1,000 in respect of the second applicant and RUB 1,500 in respect of the third applicant.

4. Administrative proceedings in respect of the second and third applicant

On 7 February 2007 the fourth applicant was interrogated by the police officers as a witness of the events of 23 January 2007. After the interrogation a report on the administrative offence under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO was drawn in his respect. He was charged with participation in an unauthorized meeting under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO.

On 9 February 2007 the Justice of the Peace of the 81 st judicial circuit of the Central District of Novorossiysk examined the administrative case. The applicant admitted participation in the meeting but insisted that it was not public. The Justice of the Peace dismissed his allegations with the reasoning identical to that in other applicants ’ cases. She found the fourth applicant guilty of participation in an unauthorised public event under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO and sentenced him to a fine of RUB 1,000.

On 2 March 2007 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Novorossiysk examined the applicant ’ s appeal and dismissed it.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. The relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of 30 December 2001, as in force at the material time, read as follows:

Article 20.2 Breaches of the established procedure for the organisation or conduct of public meetings, gatherings, demonstrations, marches or pickets

“1. Breaches of the established procedure for the organisation of public meetings, gatherings, demonstrations, marches or pickets shall be punishable by an administrative fine of between ten and twenty times the minimum wage for the organisers .

2. Breaches of the established procedure for conduct of public meetings, gatherings, demonstrations, marches or pickets shall be punishable by an administrative fine of between ten and twenty times the minimum wage for the organisers and by an administrative fine of between five to ten times the minimum wage for the participants ...”

2. The relevant provisions of the Public Events Act ( Федеральный закон « О собраниях , митингах , демонстрациях , шествиях и пикетированиях »), as in force at the material time, read as follows:

Section 2. Basic notions

“... (1) A public event ( публичное мероприятие ) is an open, peaceful event accessible to all, organised on the initiative of Russian citizens, political parties, other public associations or religious associations. It can take place as a meeting, gathering, demonstration, marche or picket, as well as a combination of these types. The aims of a public event are to express or develop opinions freely and to voice demands on issues related to political, economic, social or cultural life in the country, as well as issues related to foreign policy;

(2) A meeting ( собрание ) is a joint presence of citizens in a designated or suitable adapted for these purposes place for discussion of any matters of public interest ...

...

(7) A notification of a public event ( уведомление о проведении публичного мероприятия ) is a document by which the competent regional or local authority is informed, in accordance with the procedure established by the Act, that an event will be held, so that the competent authority may take measures to ensure safety and public order during the event ...”

Section 4. Organisation of a public event

“ Organisation of a public event includes:

(1) informing possible participants of the public event and notifying the competent regional or local authority that an event will be held ...”

Section 5. Organiser of a public event

“1. An organizer of a public event is one or more Russian citizens (... an organizer of meetings and gatherings is a Russian citizen aged 16), ... committed to organising and holding a public event ...

...

4. An organiser of a public event must:

(1) notify the competent regional or local authority that an event will be held, in accordance with the procedure established by Article 7 of the Act;

(2) inform the competent regional or local authority in writing of acceptance (or non-acceptance) of its suggestions on changing place and (or) time of the public event indicated in the notification, at least three days before the event ...

5. An organiser of a public event is not entitled to hold it if no notification had been sent in time ...”

Section 6. Participants of a public event

“1. Participants of a public event are citizens, members of political parties, members and participants of other public and regional associations, who take part in it voluntarily...”

Section 16. Reasons to stop a public event

“A public event can be stopped if:

(1) there is a real threat to life or the physical integrity of persons or property;

(2) the participants acted unlawfully or the event organiser knowingly breached the requirements of the Act as regards the conduct of the event.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention about violation of their right to organise a private meeting and to participate in it. They allege that dispersal of the meeting of 23 January 2007 by the authorities and their administrative conviction constituted unlawful and disproportionate interference with their freedom of peaceful assembly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the meeting on 23 January 2007 at the Art School of Novorossiysk a “public event” in terms of the Public Events Act ( Федеральный закон « О собраниях , митингах , демонстрациях , шествиях и пикетированиях » )?

2. As regards each applicant, has there been an interference with his or her 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 , in respect of each applicant?

Appendix

1. Marina Alekseyevna DUBROVINA is a Russian national who was born in 1965, lives in Novorossiysk and is represented by N. KRAVCHUK.

2. Vadim Yevgenyevich KARASTELEV is a Russian national who was born in 1965, lives in Novorossiysk and is represented by N. KRAVCHUK.

3. Tamara Viktorovna KARASTELEVA is a Russian national who was born in 1967, lives in Novorossiysk and is represented by N. KRAVCHUK.

4. Vladimir Fedorovich PYANKOV is a Russian national who was born in 1948, lives in Novorossiysk and is represented by N. KRAVCHUK.