Information Note on the Court’s case-law 259
February 2022
Manannikov v. Russia - 9157/08
Judgment 1.2.2022 [Section III]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
14 EUR fine on counter-demonstrator for displaying, amid the crowd of his opponents, provocative banner distorting the event’s message and likely to cause unrest: no violation
Facts – The applicant, a human rights activist, along with another person, attended an officially approved event in support of President Putin, in the run up to the legislative elections of December 2007 and the presidential election of March 2008. They moved into the crowd and raised a banner reading “Putin is better than Hitler”. When tensions appeared, the police ordered them to remove the banner; they did not and continued to display it for the entire event. No violence ensued. The applicant was convicted of “a breach of the established rules for the conduct of public events”, an administrative offence, and was fined 500 Russian roubles (equivalent to 14 euros). His appeal was unsuccessful.
Law – Article 10: The police order to remove the banner and the applicant’s conviction had amounted to an “interference” with his right to freedom of expression which had been “prescribed by law” and had pursued the legitimate aims of “prevention of disorder” and “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”. The Court then found that, in the specific circumstances of the case, it had not gone beyond what had been “necessary in a democratic society” for the following reasons.
The impugned police order had been based on the considerations that the banner had not corresponded to the programme of the event, had been provocative and could have resulted in unrest. Given that the domestic courts were better placed to assess what was likely to be considered provocative and offensive by the society, and that the text on the banner had been ambiguous, the Court gave credence to the domestic courts’ finding that the banner could have in fact been perceived as offensive by some of the participants. Indeed, comparing Mr Putin with Adolf Hitler could be seen as something other than support for the President’s policies. The Court therefore accepted that the display of the banner could have resulted in a conflict between the applicant and the participants in the public event.
That by itself could not however justify an interference with the fundamental right provided for by Article 10. A demonstration might annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it was seeking to promote. Moreover, the Court has consistently underlined the importance of the right to counter‑demonstration, which could be held at the same time and venue with a demonstration. The right to counter demonstration, however, was not absolute, as in a democracy it could not extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right to demonstrate. Further, the Contracting States had a duty to take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully. These principles, which had been formulated in cases concerning freedom of assembly, were fully pertinent to the present case, given that the applicant had expressed his opinion during a public event. Bearing them in mind, and as the domestic courts had found, the police order had been triggered by the applicant’s conduct which had been considered provocative by some of the participants to the event and by their negative reaction and not by the banner’s content as such.
Indeed, the applicant’s location among the demonstrators had been a key factor; he had chosen to raise the banner in the middle of a crowd of his opponents, although nothing had prevented him from taking a place in an adjacent area. The banner had distorted and undermined the message of support to Mr Putin that other participants and the overall demonstration had wanted to convey. It had also made it difficult for the police, who had been best positioned to evaluate the security risks and those of disturbance as well as the appropriate measures dictated by the risk assumption, to ensure the peaceful conduct of the event. Their order to remove the banner therefore did not appear to have been unreasonable or excessive and could thus be considered proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued.
Lastly, bearing in mind that the applicant had not been removed from the event, his conviction and the fine, which was the minimum amount provided by domestic law, did not appear to be excessive.
Conclusion: no violation (five votes to two).
(See also Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria, 10126/82, 21 June 1988; The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, 44079/98, 20 October 2005; Fáber v. Hungary, 40721/08, 24 July 2012, Legal Summary; Berkman v. Russia, 46712/15, 1 December 2020, Legal Summary)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes