Communicated on 13 May 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 17836/14 Viktor Borisovich SOROKIN against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applications are lodged by Mr Viktor Borisovich Sorokin who was born in 1969 and lives in Novosibirsk. A list of the applications with their respective dates of introduction is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case s

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

The applicant is an activist and the chair of the Novosibirsk regional foundation “We Are Against Corruption”.

On 14 November 2011 the applicant was found guilty of an administrative offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offences (“CAO”) (“breach of rules by an organiser of a public assembly”).

On 23 December 2011 the justice of the peace of the 2 nd circuit of the Tsentralnyy district of Novosibirsk (“the justice of the peace”) found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 2 of the CAO (“organisation of a public assembly without prior approval”) and fined him by 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB) (approximately 25 euros (EUR)). The decision entered into force on 10 May 2012.

On 27 March 2012 the justice of the peace found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence punishable under Article 20.2 § 1 of the CAO and fined him by RUB 1,000. The decision entered into force on 8 August 2012.

1. Application no. 17836/14

On 2 October 2012 the applicant notified the city administration of Novosibirsk (“the city administration”) of his intention to hold anti ‑ corruption pickets on 15-17 October 2012 at the Lenin square in Novosibirsk.

On 4 October 2012 the city administration informed the applicant that he could not act as an organiser of public assemblies pursuant to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of Federal Law no. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 (“the Public Assemblies Act”) as amended on 8 June 2012 thus refusing to agree to the pickets.

The applicant received the city administration ’ s notification on 10 October 2012 and then challenged the city administration ’ s refusal before a court.

On 27 November 2012 the Tsentralnyy district court of Novosibirsk (“the district court”) dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint declaring the city administration ’ s refusal lawful. The court stated that a person having a criminal record of a previous conviction for an intentional crime against the constitutional order and State security or a crime against public order or a person found guilty at least twice of an administrative offence related to public gatherings could not organise a public assembly. The court established that the applicant had been found guilty of administrative offences under Article 20.2 of the CAO on three occasions (on 14 November and 23 December 2011 and on 27 March 2012), reit erated that pursuant to Article 4.6 of the CAO an administrative offence record remained valid for a year after an administrative sanction had been enforced and reasoned that the city administration ’ s refusal to agree to the pickets had thus been lawful.

The applicant appealed against the district court ’ s decision.

On 21 February 2013 the Novosibirsk regional court (“the regional court”) sitting as an appeal court upheld the judgment of 27 November 2012.

On 18 April 2013 a judge of the regional court refused to accept the applicant ’ s cassation appeal against the judgments of 27 November 2012 and 21 February 2013.

The applicant instituted civil proceedings against the city administration claiming RUB 1,500,000 in non-pecuniary damages caused by the refusal to agree to the pickets. On 22 May 2013 the district court dismissed the claims in full. On 25 July 2013 the regional court upheld the judgment on appeal.

2. Application no. 17838/14

(a) Notification of 1 March 2013

On 1 March 2013 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise a meeting on 15 March 2013.

On 4 March 2013 the city administration refused to agree to the meeting pursuant to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Assemblies Act because the applicant ’ s administrative offence record had not been expunged.

The applicant was served with the refusal on 5 March 2013.

On 11 March 2013 the applicant challenged the refusal before a court. On 27 March 2013 he withdrew the complaint owing to the fact that the proposed date of the meeting had passed.

On 10 April 2013 the district court accepted the applicant ’ s motion and left the complaint unexamined.

(b) Notification of 7 March 2013

On 7 March 2013 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise meetings on 22 and 23 March 2013.

On 7 March 2013 the city administration refused to agree to the meetings pursuant to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Assemblies Act.

The applicant was served with the refusal on 12 March 2013.

On 13 March 2013 the applicant challenged the refusal before a court. On 7 May 2013 he withdrew the complaint owing to the fact that the proposed dates of the meetings had passed.

On 24 May 2013 the district court accepted the applicant ’ s motion and left the complaint unexamined.

(c) Notification of 15 March 2013

On 15 March 2013 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise meetings on 28 and 29 March 2013.

On 15 March 2013 the city administration refused to agree to the meetings for the reason that the applicant ’ s administrative offence record had not been expunged.

The applicant was served with the refusal on 19 March 2013.

On 20 March 2013 the applicant challenged the refusal before a court. On 3 April 2013 he withdrew the complaint owing to the fact that the proposed dates of the meetings had passed.

On 10 April 2013 the district court accepted the applicant ’ s motion and left the complaint unexamined.

(d) Notification of 20 March 2013

On 20 March 2013 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise meetings on 31 March and 2 April 2013.

On 21 March 2013 the city administration refused to agree to the meetings pursuant to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Assemblies Act.

The applicant was served with the refusal on 26 March 2013.

On 27 March 2013 the applicant challenged the refusal before a court. On 3 April 2013 he withdrew the complaint owing to the fact that the proposed dates of the meetings had passed.

On 16 April 2013 the district court examined the applicant ’ s complaint on the merits and dismissed it for the reason that the applicant had been found guilty of administrative offences on 23 December 2011 and 27 March 2012 and that his record had not been expunged.

On 20 June 2013 the regional court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal reaffirming the district court ’ s position.

On 28 October 2013 a judge of the regional court refused to initiate the cassation appeal proceedings.

(e) Notification of 26 March 2013

On 26 March 2013 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise meetings on 10 and 11 April 2013.

On 28 March 2013 city administration refused to agree to the meetings with reference to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Assemblies Act and the applicant ’ s administrative offence record.

The applicant was served with the refusal on 29 March 2013.

On 2 April 2013 the applicant challenged the refusal before a court. On 12 April 2013 he withdrew the complaint owing to the fact that the proposed dates of the meetings had passed.

On 15 May 2013 the district court examined the applicant ’ s complaint on the merits and dismissed it with reference to the applicant ’ s administrative offence record.

On 18 July 2013 the regional court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal.

On 25 February 2014 a judge of the regional court refused to initiate the cassation appeal proceedings.

(f) Notification of 2 April 2013

On 2 April 2013 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise meetings on 17 and 18 April 2013.

On 3 April 2013 city administration refused to agree to the meetings pursuant to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Assemblies Act because the applicant ’ s administrative offence record had not been expunged.

The applicant was served with the refusal on 4 April 2013.

On 5 April 2013 the applicant challenged the refusal before a court.

On 17 April 2013 the district court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint for the reason that in 2011-12 the applicant had been found guilty of administrative offences under Article 20. 2 §§ 1 and 2 of the CAO.

On 25 June 2013 the regional court upheld the judgment of 17 April 2013 on appeal reaffirming the district court ’ s findings.

On 4 December 2013 a judge of the regional court refused to initiate cassation appeal proceedings.

(g) Notification of 8 April 2013

On 8 April 2013 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise meetings on 23 and 24 April 2013.

On 9 April 2013 city administration refused to agree to the meetings pursuant to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Assemblies Act because the applicant ’ s administrative offence record had not been expunged.

The applicant was served with the refusal on 10 April 2013.

On 12 April 2013 the applicant challenged the refusal before a court.

On 22 April 2013 the district court dismissed the complaint having found that the city administration had acted lawfully. The applicant allegedly received a copy of the judgment on 10 or 17 August 2013.

On 19 September 2013 the district court refused to grant the applicant ’ s motion to restore the time-limits for lodging an appeal. The applicant ’ s appeal against the ruling was unsuccessful.

(h) Notification of 23 April 2013

On 23 April 2013 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise meetings on 7 and 8 May 2013.

On 25 April 2013 city administration refused to agree to the meetings pursuant to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Assemblies Act because the applicant ’ s administrative offence record had not been expunged.

The applicant was served with the refusal on 26 April 2013.

On 29 April 2013 the applicant challenged the refusal before a court. Later he withdrew the complaint owing to the fact that the proposed dates of the meetings had passed.

On 21 May 2013 the district court accepted the applicant ’ s motion and left the complaint unexamined.

( i ) Claims for non-pecuniary damages

The applicant claimed non-pecuniary damages caused by the city administration refusals to agree to the proposed meetings in three sets of proceedings.

On 15 May, 5 June and 15 July 2013, respectively, the district court dismissed the three sets of claims for damages. On 18 July and 22 October 2013 the regional court upheld the judgments of 15 May and 15 July 2013 on appeal. The appeal against the judgment of 5 June 2013 was not examined on the merits as lodged out of time. The applicant ’ s subsequent complaints were unsuccessful.

3. Application no. 17839/14

On 8 August 2012 the applicant notified the city administration of his intention to organise anti-corruption meetings on 20 – 23 August 2012 near the Lenin monument and the Opera House in Novosibirsk.

On 10 August 2012 the city administration refused to agree to the meetings for the reason that under the Public Assemblies Act a person whose criminal record has not been expunged after a conviction for a criminal offence against the constitutional foundations of government, State security, national security or public order or a person who has been found guilty more than once within a year of administrative offences under Articles 5.38, 19.3, 20.1-3, 20.18 and 20.29 of the CAO until the time his administrative offence record is expunged could not be an organiser of a public assembly. They concluded that the applicant could not be an organiser of the meetings.

The applicant received the refusal on 15 August 2012.

On 16 August 2012 the applicant challenged the city administration ’ s refusal before a court. He argued, inter alia, that he had been found guilty of administrative offences before the amendments to the Public Assemblies Act had been introduced on 8 June 2012 and that consequently those amendments could not be applied retroactively in his case.

On 30 October 2012 the district court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. It reasoned that the applicant had two administrative offence records that had not been expunged by August 2012 and accordingly had no right to organise a public assembly pursuant to section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Public Assemblies Act, that the provision in question was applicable to the applicant ’ s situation and that the city administration had complied with the time-limits established by law for notifying the applicant of their refusal to agree to the meetings.

On 12 December 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of 30 October 2012.

On 21 February 2013 the regional court upheld the judgment of 30 October 2012 on appeal reaffirming the district court ’ s findings.

On 24 April 2013 a judge of the regional court refused to initiate cassation appeal proceedings.

The applicant sought non-pecuniary damages caused by the refusal to agree to the meetings in the amount of RUB 2,000,000.

On 5 March 2013 the district court dismissed the claims for damages. On 16 May 2013 the regional court upheld the judgment on appeal. On 9 September 2013 a judge of the regional court refused to initiate cassation appeal proceedings.

B. Relevant domestic la w

1. The Code of Administrative Offences (“CAO”)

Article 4.6 of the CAO provides that a person subjected to an administrative sanction for the committed administrative offence shall be considered sanctioned for one year to be calculated from the day of entry into force of the decision to subject him or her to the administrative sanction. After the expiry of the one - year term the administrative offence record is considered expunged .

2. Federal Law no. 54-FZ of 19 June 2004 (“the Public Assemblies Act”) as amended on 8 June 2012

Section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Act stipulates that a person whose criminal record has not been expunged after a conviction for a criminal offence against the constitutional foundations of government, State security, national security or public order or a person who has been found guilty more than once within a year of hindering a lawful public assembly, disobeying a lawful order or demand of a police officer, disorderly conduct, a breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public assemblies, public display of Nazi symbols, blocking of transport communications or distribution of extremist materials (administrative offences under Articles 5.38, 19.3, 20.1-3, 20.18 and 20.29 of the CAO) may not be an organiser of a public assembly.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complain s, invoking Article s 10 and 11 of the Convention, that he has been subjected to a blanket ban to organise a public assembly because of the previously imposed administrative sanctions.

2. The applicant further complains in substance under Article 13 of the Convention that the domestic court failed to examine his complaints about the city administration ’ s refusals prior to the proposed dates of the public assemblies.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Have there been violations of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention on account of the Novosibirsk city administration ’ s refusals to agree to public assemblies intended to be organised by the applicant? In particular, does section 5 § 2 (1.1) of the Russian Public Assembly Act ( Federal Law no. 54 ‑ FZ of 19 June 2004 On Assemblies, Meetings, Demonstrations, Marches and Picketing as amended on 8 June 2012) meet the “quality of law” requirement contained in Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2 of the Convention? Is the statutory ban on persons with non-expunged criminal or administrative offence records to organise a public assembly “necessary in a democratic society”?

2. Is there an effective remedy in respect of the complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Are there any statutory time-limits for the judicial review of the authorities ’ refusals to agree to an assembly allowing for an enforceable judicial decision to be given before the intended date of the assembly ( see Alekseyev v. Russia , nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § § 97-100, 21 October 2010 ) ?

APPENDIX

1. Application no. 17836/14 lodged on 31 July 2013

2. Application no. 17838/14 lodged on 1 August 2013

3. Application no. 17839/14 lodged on 31 July 2013