Communicated on 13 May 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 58954/09 Andrey Delionovich OBOTE against Russia lodged on 27 October 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrey Delionovich Obote , is a Russian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Mozhaysk . He is represented before the Court by Mr I. Sivoldayev and Ms S. Nugayeva , lawyers practising in Voronezh and Moscow.

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

On 31 January 2009 the applicant and six other people decided to hold a “flash mob” in front of the Office of the Russian Government in Moscow.

They arrived there at around 1 p.m. and positioned themselves at the Gorbatyy Bridge, each holding a blank piece of paper and covering their mouths with an adhesive tape.

At 1.20 p.m. the police ordered them to disperse. The applicant refused and was taken to Presnenskiy police station.

The applicant was then charged under Article 20.2 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences relating to his participation in a public gathering for the requirement of notification under the Public Gatherings Act (PGA) had not been respected.

By a judgment of 11 March 2009 peace justice of the Presnenskiy District of Moscow convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a fine of 1,000 Russian roubles. [1]

The applicant appealed, challenging the applicability of the PGA to the circumstances of the case and contesting the fine imposed on him. Apparently, he did not raise any particular argument pertaining to the lawfulness and proportionality of the dispersal of the event and his taking to the police station.

On 28 April 2009 the Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow upheld the judgment.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention that the “flash ‑ mob” in question could not be classified as a “static demonstration” in terms of the Public Gatherings Act; that it was disproportionate to impose a notification requirement for such an event, which was by its very nature short and actually involved only seven people, without raising any actual or potential issue as to public safety or alike. The applicant concludes that the authorities ’ putting an end to the flash-mob and his prosecution for an administrative offence violated his freedom of assembly.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Do the facts of the case (imposition of a fine under the Code of Administrative Offences) disclose an “interference” affecting the applicant ’ s exercise of his freedom of assembly, as protected by Article 11 of the Convention?

2. If yes, was there a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in the present case? In particular:

- Given the nature of the event, its short duration and the fact that it involved only seven people, did the prosecution of the applicant in relation to his participation in a non-notified public gathering constitute a disproportionate interference with his freedom of assembly?

- Did the courts carry out a proportionality analysis, to weigh the respect for the applicant ’ s freedom of assembly against specific considerations of a public interest (e.g., observance of the notification procedure, public safety concerns)?

[1] 22 euros per Bank of Russia rate on that date