Published on 31 January 2022
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 14589/18 and 22381/18
Aleksejs ŠARIPOVS against Latvia
and Eduards GONČAROVS against Latvia
lodged on 21 March 2018 and 6 May 2018 respectively
communicated on 14 January 2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant in the first case, Mr Aleksejs Šaripovs, is a permanently resident non-citizen of Latvia, who was born in 1967 and lives in Riga.
2. The applicant in the second case, Mr Eduards Gončarovs, also is a permanently resident non-citizen of Latvia, who was born in 1967 and lives in Riga.
3. Both applicants are members of the Latvian Anti-Nazi Committee, an NGO based in Riga.
The circumstances of the case4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
5. On 16 March 2017 the applicants picketed against a procession that was held to commemorate the Latvian soldiers who had fought in the Latvian Legion of the Waffen SS during the Second World War. The applicants displayed a banner that depicted a photograph of a group of Nazi Germany soldiers executing prisoners of war. The applicants were detained for several hours on the grounds that their picket was not authorised and the banner was advocating violence.
6. By final judgments of 22 September 2017 and 6 November 2017 the Riga Regional Court found that their picket had been lawful, as no prior authorisation had been required. However, the applicants were found guilty of breaching the procedure for organising and holding pickets, as the banner had advocated violence. The applicants were given a warning. This punishment prevented them from organising other assemblies, processions or pickets for a year.
7. The applicants brough administrative proceedings complaining about the legality and necessity of their administrative detention. By final judgments of 29 July 2021, the administrative courts found that the detention had been justified, as it had been carried out to discontinue the administrative offence – the advocating of violence by displaying the banner. They did, however, find a breach with respect to the length of the detention, as it had exceeded the statutory limit of four hours by 5 and 6 minutes respectively.
Relevant domestic law8. Section 1743 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Administratīvo pārkāpumu kodekss), which was in force at the relevant time, provided that for breaches of the procedure that is laid out for organising and holding assemblies, processions, pickets and other public events private persons should be given a warning or a fine of up to EUR 350.
9. The procedure for organising and holding such events is set out, inter alia, in the Law on Assemblies, Processions and Pickets (Par sapulcēm, gājieniem un piketiem). Section 10(2) of that Law provides that during assemblies, processions and pickets it is prohibited to inveigh against the independence of the Republic of Latvia, to express proposals to violently overthrow Latvia’s State structure, to call for breaking the law, to advocate violence, ethnic or racial hatred, and blatant ideology of Nazism, fascism or communism, to carry out war propaganda, as well as to commend or call for criminal and other offences.
10. Section 4 of the Law on Assemblies, Processions and Pickets provides that such events cannot be organised by persons who over the past year have been administratively punished for breaches of the procedure for organising or holding assemblies, processions or pickets.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention that their administrative detention and punishment for an administrative offence had breached their freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In particular, the finding that they had advocated violence contradicted the fact that they had, in fact, condemned violence. Invoking the absurdity of the domestic courts’ findings the applicants also rely on Article 6 and Article 18 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants’ detention and the administrative punishment constitute an interference with their 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?
In particular, was the characterisation of the applicants’ actions as advocating violence, rather than condemning violence, justified?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?
In addition, the parties are requested to submit copies of the appeals brought in the administrative proceedings.