Communicated on 16 September 2016
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 59752/11
Yana Igorevna TEPLITSKAYA
against Russia
lodged on 28 August 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Yana Igorevna Teplitskaya, is a Russian national, who was born in 1991 and lives in St Petersburg.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The gathering of 31 October 2010
In the evening of 31 October 2010 the applicant took part in a public gathering near the “Gostinyy Dvor” metro station in St Petersburg. The gathering was held in favour of Article 31 of the Russian Constitution which guarantees everyone the right to peaceful assembly. The police officers were present there; one of them warned the participants through the megaphone several times, informing them that the gathering was unauthorised and asking them to disperse. Though the participants acted peacefully, a number of them, including the applicant, were apprehended and charged with administrative offences.
On 11 January 2011 the Justice of the Peace of the Judicial Circuit no. 203 of the Central District of St Petersburg examined the administrative case against the applicant. He found her guilty of failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer, an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and sentenced to administrative fine of 500 Russian roubles (RUB). The Justice of the Peace held that the applicant had refused to follow orders of the police officers announced through the megaphone, namely to stop the unauthorised gathering.
The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 20 April 2011 the Kuybyshevskiy District Court of St Petersburg examined her appeal and dismissed it. The court held that the organisers of the gathering had been duly informed by a city authority that holding a public event was not allowed near the “Gostinyy Dvor” metro station. It offered them to change the location of the gathering to the Chernyshevskiy Garden or another place. Therefore, the applicant knew that the gathering on 31 October 2010 had not been duly authorised by the city authorities but failed to cease her participation in it.
By the decision of 9 August 2011 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant’s supervisory appeal and upheld lower courts’ decisions.
2. The gathering of 31 March 2011
In the evening of 31 March 2011 the applicant participated in a march which took place on Degtyarnaya street in St Petersburg. The participants called for resignation of the St Petersburg Governor and protection of Article 31 of the Russian Constitution. They chanted “For the Article 31 of the Russian Constitution”, “For freedom of assembly”, “While we are united, we are invincible”. The police officers were present there; they warned the participants through the megaphone several times, informing them that the march was unauthorised and demanding them to disperse. Though the participants acted peacefully, a number of them, including the applicant, were apprehended and charged with administrative offences.
On 1 April 2011 the Justice of the Peace of the Judicial Circuit no. 210 of the Central District of St Petersburg examined the administrative case against the applicant. She found her guilty of failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer, an offence under Article 19.3 of the Code of Administrative Offences, and sentenced to administrative fine of RUB 500. The Justice of the Peace held that the march had not been duly authorised by the city authorities and that the applicant had refused to follow lawful orders of the police officers to stop it.
The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 29 April 2011 the Smolninskiy District Court of St Petersburg examined her appeal and dismissed it. The court held that the organisers of the march had been duly informed by a city authority that marching along the chosen route was impossible. It offered them to change the route, but the organisers have not done so. The applicant, thus, knew that the march had not been authorised but still participated in it.
By the decision of 28 July 2011 the St Petersburg City Court dismissed the applicant’s supervisory appeal and upheld lower courts’ decisions.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. The relevant provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of 30 December 2001, as in force at the material time, read as follows:
Article 19.3 Refusal to obey a lawful order of a police officer ...
“1. Failure to obey a lawful order or demand of a police officer ... in connection with the performance of their official duties related to maintaining public order and security, or impeding the performance by them of their official duties, shall be punishable by a fine of between RUB 500 and 1,000 or by administrative detention of up to fifteen days ...”
2. The relevant provisions of the Public Events Act (Федеральный закон «О собраниях, митингах, демонстрациях, шествиях и пикетированиях»), as in force at the material time, read as follows:
Section 2. Basic notions
“(1) A public event (публичное мероприятие) is an open, peaceful event accessible to all, organised on the initiative of Russian citizens, political parties, other public associations or religious associations, with possible use of transport. It can take place as a meeting, gathering, demonstration, march or picket, as well as a combination of these types. The aims of a public event are to express or develop opinions freely and to voice demands on issues related to political, economic, social or cultural life in the country, as well as issues related to foreign policy;
...
(7) A notification of a public event (уведомление о проведении публичного мероприятия) is a document by which the competent regional or local authority is informed, in accordance with the procedure established by the Act, that an event will be held, so that the competent authority may take measures to ensure safety and public order during the event ...”
Section 5. Organiser of a public event
“4. An organiser of a public event must:
(1) notify the competent regional or local authority that an event will be held, in accordance with the procedure established by Article 7 of the Act;
(2) inform the competent regional or local authority in writing of acceptance (or non-acceptance) of its suggestions on changing place and (or) time of the public event indicated in the notification, at least three days before the event ...
...
5. An organiser of a public event is not entitled to hold it if no notification had been sent in time ...”
Section 6. Participants of a public event
“1. Participants of a public event are citizens, members of political parties, members and participants of other public and regional associations, who take part in it voluntarily.
...
3. During the public event its participants must:
...
(2) maintain public order and procedure of conduct of a public event.”
Section 16. Reasons to stop a public event
“A public event can be stopped if:
(1) there is a real threat to life or the physical integrity of persons or property;
(2) the participants acted unlawfully or the event organiser knowingly breached the requirements of the Act as regards the conduct of the event.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention about the allegedly unlawful and disproportionate measures taken against her, namely the dispersal of a public gathering and a march and her twofold administrative conviction for participation in them.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly in each case, 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 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy