PARTLY CONCURRING AND PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BOTOUCHAROVA , JOINED BY JUDGE HAJIYEV

I agreed with my colleagues in finding a separate violation of Article 13 of the Convention in this case. However, my approach to the issue under Article 11 of the Convention was somewhat different , namely finding a violation of Article 11 in conjunction with Article 13.

The reasons for this are the following:

Firstly, unlike the situation in Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden ( nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, ECHR 2001 ‑ IX ) and T he United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria (no. 44079/98, 20 October 2005 ) , in the case at hand the two events were to take place in Sofia , that is , outside the Pirin region . The two rallies in issue here were apparently isolated occurrences.

The other feature which distinguishes the present case is that its main element is the impossibility to obtain a proper judicial review of the mayor ’ s bans of the rallies. A ny perceived deficiencies in the mayor ’ s orders could have been remedied by the courts, which could have reviewed them on the merits . They could have then either given relevant and sufficient reasons, within the meaning of Article 11, for upholding the bans, or quashing them if they found that such did not exist. T he need for this stemmed from the respondent State ’ s obligation under Article 13 to provide an effective remedy to the applicants, who had an arguable claim under Article 11 . It is a well ‑ established principle that it is first and foremost the role of the Contracting States to afford redress for interferences with the rights protected under the Convention .

W hen the first applicant appeal ed against the second ban, the first ‑ and the second ‑ instance courts stated that they would have jurisdiction to examine an appeal against a mayoral ban only after the Executive Committee of the People ’ s Council – a body which no longer existed at that time – had already dismissed it. That holding was based on outdated and, as conceded by the domestic courts (see paragraph 21 of the judgment) , infelicitous legal provision s , section 12(4) and (6) of the Meetings and Marches Act of 1990. It is true that the Supreme Court of Cassation eventually stated that it did not subscribe to this holding (see paragraph 2 3 of the judgment) . However, it still rejected the first applicant ’ s appeal on the ground that it had become moot. The reason for that was that the procedure before the courts lasted for years after the date of the planned event , whereas, in the circumstances, the notion of effective remedy implied the possibility to obtain a ruling before that .

To sum up, as a result of the lack of effective remedies the applicants were not able to obtain the quashing of the bans , while the authorities were not placed in a position to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the interferences with the applicants ’ freedom of assembly .

Thus, the issue under Article 11 arose because of the lack of proper remedies, which was , as explained above, in breach of Article 13. Because of this , I am of the view that the two were to be examined together , which could have resulted in a finding of a violation of Article 11 in conjunction with Article 13.

[1] . Treaty, concluded between Bulgaria , Greece , Montenegro , Romania and Serbia on 10 August 1913 , which brought an end to the Second Balkan War (1913).