Communicated on 26 February 2021
Published on 15 March 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 2623/16 and 2299/16
RODINA against Latvia
and Anda BORISOVA against Latvia
lodged on 5 January 2016 and 4 January 2016 respectively
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant in the first case (no. 2623/16), Rodina, is an association registered in 2004 and based in Riga (“the applicant association”). Its name means “Fatherland” in Russian.
2. The applicant in the second case (no. 2299/16), Ms Anda Borisova, is a Latvian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Riga.
3. The applicants in both cases are represented before the Court by Mr A. Kuzmins, a lawyer practising in Riga.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.The circumstances of the case of Rodina v. Latvia, no. 2623/16
5. The applicant organisation’s registered goals include representation of the Russian language community in Latvia and the protection and development of the national identity of Russians in Latvia.
6. On 9 May 2014, when the Russian community in Latvia celebrated Victory Day, the applicant association wished to organise a Russian march. The stated aim of the march was to draw attention to the problems of the Russian community in Latvia, particularly the functioning of the Russian minority schools. The applicant association had organised marches with the same goals and slogans since 2009.
7. On 7 May 2014 the Riga City Council refused to authorise the march. It relied on a Security Police force’s report stating that the applicant association’s goals were to divide society, to demonstrate the superiority of Russians and to diminish the Latvian nation and culture. The report further submitted that there could be attempts to use the symbols of the former USSR or Nazi Germany, which were prohibited in Latvia. The events organised by the applicant association had previously been attended by members of a Latvian-based Cossack association wearing military uniforms, which could be perceived negatively in society. The report also stated that the Cossack identity was closely connected with the protection of the interests of Russia, including the participation of volunteers in military conflicts. The latter had been demonstrated by the recent arrival of Russian Cossacks on the territory of Ukraine to take action against the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
8. The Riga City Council also referred to a video posted on the applicant association’s web page prior to the march of 2013. The video included the following text: “Russians – the oldest nation of Latvia, 60% of the inhabitants of Riga, 40% of the inhabitants of Latvia. Riga – our city, Latvia – our country. Russian language – the language of Latvia. Russians do not give up!” Another video depicted scenes from World War II and stated: “Glory to the heroes! Glory to the Baltic Russian land!” The Riga City Council considered that even though similar slogans had been used in earlier events organised by the applicant association, currently, in view of the recent developments in Ukraine, they could be regarded as more provocative, possibly even unlawful. The Riga City Council concluded that the goals of the applicant association were not peaceful, and the march should be banned in order to protect public order and safety and to prevent intentional provocation with respect to matters of national importance.
9. The applicant association challenged this ban before the administrative courts. On 8 May 2014 the Administrative District Court upheld the ban and agreed with the reasoning of the Riga City Council, pointing out, in addition, that the videos posted on the applicant association’s web page made no reference to the stated goal of the march – the protection of the Russian minority schools. These videos had been aggressive and provocative, and the march had been aimed at dividing society and creating ideological conflicts and ethnic tensions. In view of the already existing tensions on sensitive national issues, the applicant association’s invitation to the march could not be regarded as peaceful. Even though the same videos had been posted already a year earlier, they had to be assessed in the light of the current international political situation and the mood in society. If a year ago the slogans used in the video could be seen as merely emotionally tainted, right now, in view of the events in Ukraine, the applicant association’s gatherings that use such slogans would not enhance social cohesion but would cause an opposite reaction in the nationalistically-minded part of society. Accordingly, the prohibition to organise the march was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting public order and safety.
10. The applicant association lodged an appeal on points of law. However, on 7 July 2015 the Supreme Court refused to institute proceedings on points of law. It agreed that the interference with the applicant association’s rights was proportionate. It also pointed out that under Article 17 of the Convention any ideas aimed at the destruction of other persons’ rights were not protected. In the present case the aims of the march were not peaceful. It was not decisive that there had been no incidents during the earlier events. The warfare in Ukraine, which at the time of the planned event had only recently started, was a serious consideration that had to be taken into account in view of its impact in Latvia.The circumstances of the case of Borisova v. Latvia, no. 2299/16
11. On 5 September 2014 the applicant requested authorisation for a demonstration to be held on 23 September 2014 in front of the Ukrainian embassy. The stated aim of the demonstration was to stop the war in south‑eastern Ukraine. The application indicated B.A. as the person responsible for order during the demonstration.
12. On 10 September 2014 the Security Police issued a report stating that B.A. had acted against the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Hence, the demonstration would divide society and endanger public safety and the democratic order of the State. The Riga City Council informed the applicant of the aforementioned report, and on 15 September 2014 the applicant replaced B.A. with another person.
13. On 22 September 2014 the Riga City Council refused to authorise the demonstration. In its decision it noted that during a meeting the applicant had revealed that B.A. would participate in the demonstration and that he was helping with its organisation, particularly by disseminating information about it. Furthermore, also in mass media B.A. presented himself as the organiser of the demonstration and submitted that the aim of the event was to demand the cessation of the aggression against the nation of Donbass. According to the information disseminated by B.A., the goal of the demonstration was to show to “the Russian junta” that Latvian society was against the war in “the New Russia” and to demand that the Ukrainian government withdraw its armed forces from those territories and recognise the independence of “the Republic of Donetsk” and “the Republic of Luhansk”. The Riga City Council pointed out that the applicant had not distanced herself from B.A. and his stated goals, which indicated that he was the real organiser of the event. His stated aims went against the official position of the Latvian Government, which had condemned Russia’s armed attack on the Ukrainian territory and regarded it as an aggression against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Accordingly, the goals of the demonstration were not peaceful, and it was to be prohibited to protect the democratic order of the State and public safety. The applicant challenged this refusal before the administrative courts.
14. Despite the prohibition, on 23 September 2014 a smaller demonstration (a picket) was held in front of the Ukrainian embassy. Both the applicant and B.A. participated. The participants held posters calling for recognition of the independence of “the Republic of Donetsk” and “the Republic of Luhansk”. The picket proceeded without any intervention by the authorities.
15. On 27 October 2014 the Administrative District Court upheld the Riga City Council’s refusal to authorise the demonstration. In addition to the reasons given by the Riga City Council, it noted that B.A. had travelled to Ukraine where he had volunteered in the so-called “self-defence forces of Crimea”, and had been arrested and expelled by the Ukrainian government for participation in an unlawful armed organisation, after which he had nonetheless attempted to re-enter the territory of Ukraine to continue fighting against its State order. B.A. had publicly stated that he was a member of the party “the Other Russia” – a non-registered National Bolshevik organisation in Russia that had recruited paramilitary fighters for the war in south-eastern Ukraine. In addition to that, criminal proceedings against B.A. had been instituted in Latvia for public incitement to take violent actions against the Latvian Government and to put an end to the independence of Latvia. The Administrative District Court agreed that the goals of the demonstration had not been peaceful and that it had to be prohibited in order to protect the democratic order of the State and public safety. The picket eventually organised on 23 September 2014 had called for the recognition of internationally unrecognised entities, which contradicted the aim indicated in the authorisation request. Finally, referring to Article 17 of the Convention, the Administrative District Court stated that war propaganda and calls to recognise internationally unrecognised entities could not be protected, as they were contrary to the values of democratic society. The court concluded that the interference with the applicant’s freedom of assembly had been proportionate.
16. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 8 July 2015 the Supreme Court refused to institute proceedings on points of law.
COMPLAINTS
17. Relying on Articles 10 and Article 11 of the Convention the applicants complain about the refusals to authorise the assemblies that they wished to hold.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, in particular, their right to impart information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 11 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, did it pursue a “legitimate aim”; did it answer a “pressing social need”; was it proportionate to the legitimate aim; and were the reasons adduced by the national authorities “relevant and sufficient”?
3. Were the acts of the applicants in the present cases aimed at the destruction of rights and freedoms to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention, within the meaning of Article 17?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy