Communicated on 17 November 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 32568/11 ARMENIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT against Armenia lodged on 18 May 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant organisation, the Armenian National Movement, is a political party which was established in 1988 and has its registered office in Yerevan.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 30 August 2010 the applicant organisation submitted a notification to the Yerevan Mayor ’ s Office under Section 10 of the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act (hereafter, the Act) of its intention to hold a rally at Yerevan ’ s Freedom Square on 17 September 2010 from 6 to 10 p.m., followed by a march through Mashtots Avenue and a number of other streets and ending back at Freedom Square.

On 1 September 2010 the Yerevan Mayor ’ s Office decided, with reference to Section 13 § 1(2) of the Act, to ban the applicant organisation from holding a rally at Freedom Square for the following reasons: (a) a contract signed on 10 June 2010 between the Head of the Central District of Yerevan and two private persons, A.T. and A.M., according to which carousels and attractions for children had been installed on Freedom Square; and (b) a notice of 23 August 2010 from the Culture and Tourism Department of the Yerevan Mayor ’ s Office according to which, starting from 10 September 2010, after working hours and including the weekends, preparatory work and rehearsals would be held on Freedom Square by various ensembles and cultural organisations for the purpose of the celebration of Yerevan ’ s anniversary on 10 October 2010, with the main rehearsals to be held on 16-18 September and 8-9 October 2010. It was suggested that the applicant organisation hold its rally near Matenadaran (Institute of Ancient Manuscripts) on the same date and time, followed by the march.

On 6 September 2010 the applicant organisation contested the ban before the Administrative Court. It argued that the notice of 23 August 2010 could not be considered a “notification” within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act and therefore could not serve as a reason justifying the ban under Section 13 § 1(2). It further questioned whether a contract to perform certain commercial activities, such as installing carousels and attractions, could serve as a ground for the ban. By banning the rally, the Yerevan Mayor ’ s Office had violated, inter alia , Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the Act and Article 11 of the Convention.

On 7 September 2010 the Administrative Court decided to dismiss the applicant organisation ’ s claim, finding that the ban was in compliance with Section 13 § 1(2) of the Act and did not violate the applicant organisation ’ s right to assembly. The Yerevan Mayor ’ s Office was vested with the authority to organise various mass cultural events in the city of Yerevan pursuant to Section 61 of the Law on Local Self-Government in the City of Yerevan. The decision of 1 September 2010 was motivated by the process of organising such an event. The notice of the Culture and Tourism Department of the Yerevan Mayor ’ s Office had been recorded in the register of incoming documents under no. 140 on 23 August 2010, while the applicant organisation ’ s notification had been recorded later – on 30 August 2010 under no. 141. Thus, when examining the applicant organisation ’ s notification, the Mayor of Yerevan had already been informed of the content of the notice of the Culture and Tourism Department. The conduct of mass cultural events by the Mayor of Yerevan was not regulated by the Act and the procedure for notification prescribed by the Act did not apply to such events. Therefore, the notice of 23 August 2010 could not be considered as a “notification” within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. Nevertheless, the information contained in that notice was of importance for the decisions taken pursuant to the Act. As regards the contract of 10 June 2010, it was valid until 1 November 2010 and confirmed that events organised for children ’ s recreation were to be held at Freedom Square during the same period as indicated in the applicant organisation ’ s notification. The organisation of such events similarly did not require the submission of notification within the meaning of the Act. Lastly, as regards Section 13 § 4 of the Act, rehearsals were to be held at Freedom Square starting from 10 September 2010 and it was impossible to allow someone else to hold a mass public event in the same location, as this would also violate the rights of others. Thus, it was proposed that the applicant organisation hold a rally on the same date and time but in a different location. The proposed location was also in the Central District, not far from Freedom Square and was the nearest public space suitable for a rally. Numerous rallies had already been held in that location, including by the applicant organisation. Furthermore, it was possible to start the intended march from that location and its route would not be affected in any way.

On 11 October 2010 the applicant organisation lodged an appeal on points of law, in which it argued that its rally had been banned in the absence of another event justifying the ban within the meaning of Section 13 § 1(2) of the Act as no “notification” had been submitted in respect of such events within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act. The applicant organisation also argued that it had not received a proposition to hold the rally at the same location but on anot her day, as required by Section 13 § 4 of the Act.

On 20 October 2010 the Court of Cassation decided to declare the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit and to uphold the decision of the Administrative Court.

B. Relevant domestic law

1. The Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act (in force between 22 May 2004 and 2 May 2011)

Section 2 provides that a “mass public event” is a public event which has more than one hundred participants, a “non-mass public event” is a public event which has fewer than one hundred participants and “other events” include celebrations, ceremonies and cultural or sports events.

Section 10 provides that, with the exception of spontaneous public events, mass public events may be held only after notifying the competent authority in writing. The organisers shall notify in writing the head of the district where the mass public event is to be held of their intention to hold such an event. The notification shall be considered lawful and subject to examination if submitted not later than five working days and not earlier than twenty working days prior to the event.

Section 11 provides that the notification of the intention to hold a mass public event shall be signed by the organisers and shall contain information on the location and approximate times of such an event. The notifications of the intention to hold a mass public event submitted to the competent authority shall be recorded in a register kept specially for that purpose, in order of receipt, while copies shall be posted on the wall in the administrative building of the competent authority in an accessible and visible place.

Section 12 provides that the competent authority shall examine the notification within 72 hours of receipt, in order of receipt. As a result of examination of the notification, in the absence of the circumstances mentioned in Section 13, the notification of the mass public event shall be taken into consideration and the event shall be held in the place and at the time indicated in the notification. In the presence of the circumstances mentioned in Section 13, a decision shall be taken to ban the mass public event.

Section 13 § 1(2) provides that the competent authority may ban the mass public event if another mass public event, preventing the holding of the planned mass public event, is to be held on the same date, at the same time and in the same location, or if a non-mass public event or another event, preventing the holding of the planned mass public event, is to be held on the same date, at the same time and in the same location and in respect of which a notification has been submitted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by this Act. Section 13 § 4 provides that if the competent authority, when examining the notification, finds that there are reasons to ban the mass public event under Section 13 § 1(2), it is obliged to propose to the organiser other days for holding the mass public event (in the location and at the time indicated in the notification) and another time (in the location and on the day indicated in the notification) or other conditions related to the manner of the planned event (in the location and at the time indicated in the notification). The other day proposed by the competent authority must be during the two days following the day proposed by the organisers.

2 . The Law on Local Self-Government in the City of Yerevan (in force since 26 January 2009)

Section 61 § 2 provides that in the field of education, culture and youth the Mayor has the authority to organise national cultural and sports mass events, as well as mass events related to public and national holidays and remembrance days.

COMPLAINT

The applicant organisation complains under Article 11 of the Convention that the decision of 1 September 2010 was taken in violation of the domestic law, namely Sections 10, 11 and 13 of the Act. Furthermore, it did not pursue a legitimate aim and was not necessary in a democratic society.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicant organisation ’ s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant organisation ’ s freedom of peaceful assembly prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?