Communicated on 21 January 2014
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 36072/07
Olga Vladimirovna KURNOSOVA against Russia
lodged on 6 August 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Olga Vladimirovna Kurnosova, is a Russian national who was born in 1961 and lives in St Petersburg. She is represented before the Court by Ms O. Tseytlina and Mr S. Golobok, lawyers practising in St Petersburg.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 March 2007 the acting Moscow prosecutor suspended the activities of the National Bolsheviks Party pending judicial banning proceedings on the basis of section 10 § 1 of the Suppression of Extremism Act (see below).
On 5 April 2007 a special issue of Petersburg Ahead, Yabloko Party newspaper distributed in St Petersburg, was released. The applicant was the executive editor of that special issue dedicated to the March of Dissenters scheduled for 15 April 2007. It called for participation in the March organised by a coalition of opposition groups and explained its aims and political demands. It also published an item by Mr Dmitriyev, the leader of National Bolsheviks of St Petersburg. The item described the previous March of Dissenters that had taken place on 3 March 2007 and criticised the authorities’ violent response to it. It claimed that many participants to the March, including elderly persons and women, had been beaten up by the police. The item also stated that although the National Bolsheviks were under the threat of a ban, they did not give up their fight for truth and expected to meet their supporters at the March of Dissenters of 15 April 2007.
On 14 April 2007 the St Petersburg office of Yabloko Party was searched by the police and copies of the special issue of Petersburg Ahead newspaper were seized.
On 15 April 2007 the Justice of the Peace of the 201th Court Circuit of St Petersburg found the applicant guilty of a breach of the established procedure for conducting public assemblies, an offence under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code. The Justice of the Peace found that the applicant should have known about the suspension of the activities of the National Bolsheviks Party. Despite that she had published an item by the Party’s St Petersburg regional branch’s leader calling for participation in the March of 15 April 2007. She had thereby involved a suspended association into participating in a public assembly organised by her, in breach of section 16 of the Suppression of Extremism Act (see below). The Justice of the Peace ordered that the applicant pay a fine in the amount of 1,000 Russian roubles (RUB, about 28.5 euros (EUR)).
The applicant appealed. She argued, in particular, that she had complied with the procedure for conducting public assemblies established by the Public Assemblies Act and her liability under Article 20.2 §§1 of the Administrative Offences Code had therefore had no basis in law. Nor had the publication by her of an item by Mr Dmitriyev been in breach of the Suppression of Extremism Act. Firstly, Mr Dmitriyev had written the item in question in his private capacity of a supporter of the National Bolsheviks ideology rather than in his capacity of a member of the suspended National Bolsheviks Party. Secondly, the applicant could not have known about the suspension of the Party’s activities because the item had been given to her on 18 April 2007, while the Party’s activities had been suspended on 21 April 2007.
On 31 May 2007 the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg upheld the decision of 15 April 2007 on appeal, finding that it had been lawful, well-reasoned and justified.
B. Relevant domestic law
The Suppression of Extremism Act (Federal Law no. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002, as in force at the material time) provides that the competent official who has applied to a court for dissolution or banning of a public or religious association on the ground of its extremist activities may take a decision to suspend the activities of that association pending the dissolution or banning proceedings (section 10 § 1). This decision may be appealed against to a court (section 10 § 2). If the activities of a public or religious association have been suspended, that association may not issue mass media, use State-owned of municipal mass-media, organise public assemblies, take part in elections or referenda or use its bank accounts (section 10 § 3). If the application for its dissolution or banning is rejected by a court, the association may resume its activities after the judgment becomes final (section 10 § 4).
The Suppression of Extremism Act further provides that it is prohibited to resort to extremist activities during gatherings, meetings, demonstrations, marches or pickets. Organisers of public assemblies are responsible for ensuring that that prohibition is complied with and for stopping any ongoing extremist activities without delay. Before a public assembly the organisers must receive a written warning in this respect from the police (section 16 § 1). It is prohibited to involve extremist associations into participating in public assemblies, to use their attributes or symbols or to distribute extremist materials (section 16 § 3). If any of the above occurs during a public assembly, the organisers must immediately take measures to stop these breaches of law. If the organisers fail to take such measures, the assembly may be terminated by the authorities and the organisers may be held liable in accordance with law (section 16 § 4).
At the material time a breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public assemblies was punishable by a fine of 1,000 to 2,000 Russian roubles (RUB) for the organisers of the assembly, and from RUB 500 to 1,000 for the participants (Article 20.2 §§ 1 and 2 of the Administrative Offences Code).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the fine imposed on her interfered with her freedom of expression. The interference was unlawful because Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code imposed liability for the breaches of law committed in the course of public assemblies. It was not applicable to publications, including those dedicated to public assemblies. Moreover, domestic law was unforeseeable in its application. The prosecutor’s decision to suspend the activities of the National Bolsheviks Party was not published. Nor was it final at the moment of the publication of the contested item by the applicant as judicial review proceedings were pending. The applicant therefore could not have foreseen that the publication of the item in question would make her liable under Article 20.2 § 1 of the Administrative Offences Code. She further argues that the item published by her was written by Mr Dmitriyev in his private capacity of a supporter of the National Bolsheviks ideology rather than in his capacity of the leader of the suspended National Bolsheviks Party’s regional branch. At the material time Russian law did not explicitly prohibit a publication of an item written by an alleged leader of an association whose activities were suspended. Finally, the applicant complained that the interference was not “necessary in a democratic society”.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Did the fine imposed on the applicant in the administrative offence proceedings interfere with her rights under Article 10 of the Convention, interpreted in the light of Article 11? Was that interference in accordance with the law, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy